Bram Herlich

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the Association's claim that the employer failed to comply with a Memorandum of Settlement.

The employer argued that the Board lacked jurisdiction because the settlement did not explicitly incorporate the dispute resolution mechanism from the collective agreement.

The Board dismissed the motion, finding that the settlement explicitly stated the Board remained seized with respect to its implementation, interpretation, and remedial aspects, thereby conferring jurisdiction to hear the non-compliance claim.

The union filed grievances on behalf of seasonal employees alleging that the employer improperly reduced the duration of their seasonal contracts and failed to offer pre-season work.

The union argued that the employer's actions were motivated by anti-union animus, involved improper contracting out, and were contrary to the doctrine of promissory estoppel based on alleged promises made to the grievors.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievances, finding no evidence of anti-union animus or improper contracting out.

The Board also rejected the estoppel claims, concluding that there were no clear and unequivocal promises intended to affect legal relations, nor was there detrimental reliance by the grievors.

The employer brought a motion to dismiss a province-wide union grievance on the basis that it was referred to arbitration approximately one month beyond the time stipulated under the collective agreement.

The union argued that the employer had waived any right to object to the tardy referral, given that seven years had elapsed and significant litigation events had occurred before the employer raised the objection.

The arbitrator agreed with the union, finding that the employer must be taken to have waived any reliance on the time limit.

The employer's objection was dismissed.

The union filed a grievance after the employer directed an occupational health and safety inspector, under threat of discipline, to attend and testify at an examination for discovery in a civil action against the Crown.

The union argued that section 63(3) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act makes inspectors non-compellable witnesses.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that while the inspector was being compelled, the privilege against testifying does not reside with the inspector personally.

Reading the Act as a whole, the Board concluded that the employer (the Crown) has the discretion to waive the privilege and direct the inspector to testify in order to defend the integrity of the inspection process.

The employer sought production of the grievor's medical records in relation to an accommodation request and the alleged effect of the employer's actions on the grievor's mental health.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the union and the grievor to produce arguably relevant clinical notes and records from specified health practitioners.

The Board imposed conditions limiting the review and use of the documents to the current proceedings and authorized review by specific employer representatives and medical experts.

The Employer sought an order for the production of the grievor's clinical notes and medical records.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the Union and the grievor to produce the records of specified doctors and other health practitioners, limited to documents arguably relevant to the grievor's accommodation request and the effect of the Employer's actions on his mental health.

The Board also imposed conditions on who could review the documents and restricted their use solely to these proceedings.

The union filed grievances on behalf of two employees regarding escort duty.

The parties agreed to resolve the grievances through a mediation-arbitration process under the collective agreement.

The arbitrator issued a decision without reasons, directing the employer to pay the grievors the equivalent of 12 and 24 hours' pay, respectively, at the applicable rates.

The decision was issued on a without-prejudice basis for any other proceedings.

The grievor failed to appear at the scheduled grievance arbitration hearing.

With the agreement of the parties, the Grievance Settlement Board ordered that the grievances would be deemed dismissed in two weeks unless the union provided submissions with reasonable justification for the grievor's absence.

The union filed a policy grievance alleging the employer violated the collective agreement's employment stability provisions regarding temporary assignments for surplus employees.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss portions of the claim for failing to establish a prima facie case.

The arbitrator dismissed the employer's motion regarding the union's claim that the employer must track and match temporary assignments, and the claim that surplus employees should be considered when fixed-term contracts are renewed.

However, the arbitrator allowed the employer's motion to dismiss the union's claim that surplus employees have displacement rights over fixed-term or acting employees, finding no basis for such rights in the collective agreement.

The grievor, a long-service employee with no prior discipline, was suspended for five days after making negative comments about the employer and its management to clients and within earshot of clients on four separate occasions.

The union grieved the suspension, arguing it was excessive and a reprisal for the grievor's earlier comments to the media.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the grievor's conduct breached his duty of fidelity and warranted discipline, as employees in the hospitality industry must not malign management to customers.

However, considering the grievor's clean disciplinary record, his long service, and the lack of progressive discipline, the Board reduced the penalty to a three-day suspension.

The union grieved the employer's decision not to award the grievor the position of Graphic Design and Print Operator.

The employer conceded that it failed to check the grievor's references or review his internal performance plans during the job competition.

The union also raised concerns about the participation of the grievor's immediate supervisor on the selection panel, given a prior workplace harassment complaint.

The arbitrator found that while it was not certain the grievor would have been the successful candidate absent the defects, the possibility could not be excluded.

The employer was directed to rerun the competition between the grievor and the incumbent.

The union sought an adjournment of the grievance arbitration hearing because the grievor was ill and unable to attend.

The employer did not object to the adjournment but sought terms.

The arbitrator granted the adjournment, ordering the grievor to provide independent medical documentation supporting his absence and directing the union to provide full written particulars of its claim prior to the next hearing date.

In a grievance alleging harassment and discrimination in the filling of temporary positions outside the bargaining unit, the union sought to introduce evidence of facts underlying two previously settled grievances to establish a pattern of improper employer conduct.

The employer objected to the admission of this evidence.

The Grievance Settlement Board upheld the employer's objection, reaffirming the sanctity of settlements.

The Board found no 'special circumstances' or flagrant employer conduct that would justify an exception to the general rule against litigating the factual matrices of resolved grievances.

The union grieved that the employer violated the collective agreement by allowing managers to perform bargaining unit work, specifically receiving and investigating work refusals in correctional facilities.

At the conclusion of the union's case, the employer moved for a non-suit.

The Grievance Settlement Board granted the non-suit motion, finding that the union failed to adduce sufficient evidence to establish its claim of a uniform province-wide practice of assigning such triage work to bargaining unit personnel.

The union filed a grievance alleging that the grievor was subjected to discrimination on the basis of age and sex, claiming he was scheduled for fewer overtime hours than younger female co-workers.

The employer argued that the union failed to make out a prima facie case based on the particulars provided.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the data provided by the union did not support the allegations of discrimination, noting that the grievor was out of the relevant position for large portions of the time and that another male employee of similar age received high overtime hours.

The grievance was dismissed.

The union applied for interim relief to direct the employer to treat certain employees as included in the bargaining unit pending the arbitration of their exclusion due to organizational changes.

The union argued that the employees would lose job security rights if laid off while excluded.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the application, finding that the alleged harm was entirely speculative as no employees had been identified for layoff, and that the Board had the capacity to fashion an appropriate remedy if necessary.

Two sets of grievances were referred to the Grievance Settlement Board.

The first set involved claims for unpaid meal expenses for the grievors' spouses who attended an award ceremony at the employer's invitation.

The Board allowed these grievances, finding the employer's initial invitation reasonably implied such expenses would be covered, and ordered the employer to pay the outstanding amounts.

The second set challenged the employer's decision to assign holiday road-side enforcement work to TEO2s rather than TEO3s.

The Board dismissed these grievances, concluding the assignment was entirely within the employer's purview and made without improper motive.

The parties reached an agreement regarding the grievances.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered that the agreement reached by the parties on December 19, 2011, constitutes an order of the Board.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the union's grievance without a hearing on the merits, arguing that the allegations failed to disclose a prima facie violation of the collective agreement.

The grievance alleged that the employer acted in bad faith and arbitrarily in assigning the grievor, a court reporter, to non-trial courts, resulting in a significant loss of transcription income.

The employer contended that the assignment of duties was an unreviewable exercise of management rights.

The Grievance Settlement Board declined to dismiss the grievance at the preliminary stage, noting the complexity of the legal issues surrounding the duty of good faith in the exercise of management rights and directing that the matter proceed to a full evidentiary hearing.

The union grieved the employer's decision to use a lottery system to assign a preferred desk, alleging it violated the collective agreement and the Human Rights Code by discriminating on the basis of age and gender.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the grievance for failing to disclose a prima facie case.

The Grievance Settlement Board struck portions of the union's particulars that improperly expanded the scope of the grievance.

Assuming the remaining facts were true, the Board found that the failure to assign a desk based on seniority did not constitute a human rights violation, and dismissed the grievance.