Bram Herlich

The union sought production of a Memorandum of Settlement entered into between the employer and another employee, which was currently under seal.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the employer to obtain, review, and produce the Memorandum of Settlement to union counsel, subject to the implied undertaking that it be used solely for the purposes of the current proceedings.

In a grievance arbitration concerning a 20-day suspension, the union moved for a non-suit at the close of the employer's case.

The employer argued the union should be put to its election as to whether it would call evidence.

The Grievance Settlement Board reviewed its jurisprudence and that of the Ontario Labour Relations Board, concluding that while there is no uniform practice, the Board has the discretion to entertain a non-suit motion without requiring an election based on considerations of expedition, fairness, and the Board's own concerns about the strength of the case.

The Board declined to put the union to its election but ultimately dismissed the non-suit motion without providing reasons, to avoid unfairness to the employer.

The Union grieved the Employer's decision to fill a Conservation Officer vacancy in Ignace without a posting or competition, relying on Article 6.1.2 of the collective agreement.

The Employer had used the results of a recent competition for a similar position in Dryden.

The Union argued that a vacancy in a different location could not be considered a 'similar vacancy' under the agreement.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that recent amendments to Article 6.1.2 removed language restricting its application to vacancies at the same worksite, thereby allowing the Employer to rely on the prior competition.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss six grievances alleging unjust discipline, arguing that no discipline had been imposed.

The Vice-Chair divided the grievances into two categories.

For three grievances involving suspensions with pay, the Vice-Chair deferred the determination until all evidence could be heard.

For the remaining three grievances, which complained of specific letters, the Vice-Chair found no arguable basis that the letters constituted discipline and dismissed those grievances.

The union filed four grievances challenging the non-renewal of an unclassified employee's fixed-term contract, alleging bad faith, failure to post job vacancies, failure to convert her status to a classified employee, and discrimination.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the Board lacked jurisdiction to review the non-renewal of an unclassified contract.

The Board dismissed the preliminary objection, finding it had jurisdiction to inquire where the non-renewal engaged an alleged violation of another collective agreement provision.

However, assuming the union's facts as true, the Board dismissed all four grievances on the merits, finding no evidence of bad faith, no obligation to declare vacancies, that the grievor lacked the requisite two-year service for conversion, and no evidence of improper discrimination.

In a pre-hearing motion regarding 28 grievances, the Employer sought to dismiss three grievances for the Union's failure to provide particulars and to strike portions of the Union's pleadings relating to events from 11 to 17 years prior.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the three grievances, noting the grievor's inability to recall any details and the Union's failure to comply with prior orders to provide particulars.

The Board also struck the impugned paragraphs from the pleadings, finding the extreme temporal gap would cause significant prejudice to the Employer and that the evidence had negligible probative value.

The union filed numerous grievances challenging the employer's implementation of its 'underfill' policy for the Transportation Enforcement Officer classification series, where less qualified applicants were hired and paid at a lower rate until fully qualified.

The parties reached a settlement on a go-forward protocol but could not agree on compensation for the grievors.

The arbitrator directed the employer to pay $1,000 to each of the grievors listed in the appendix.

The parties agreed to a mediation/arbitration process to resolve multiple grievances filed by the union on behalf of the grievor.

The Vice-Chair issued a decision without reasons, directing the employer to assign the grievor as a permanent full-time Customer Service Representative to a store in the London geographical area.

The order fully and finally disposed of all the noted grievances.

The grievor, a correctional officer, was discharged for allegedly assaulting a special needs inmate, submitting a false occurrence report, and providing false information during the investigation.

The incident involved the grievor entering the inmate's cell and allegedly kicking her.

The Board found the evidence of the corroborating officer more credible than the grievor's, concluding that the grievor did assault the inmate and subsequently prevaricated about the events.

Given the statutory limitations on substituting penalties where unjustified force is applied to an inmate, and the absence of mitigating factors such as remorse or long service, the Board upheld the discharge and dismissed the grievances.

The union filed a group grievance alleging the employer violated the collective agreement by failing to post a Senior Driver Examiner position.

However, the union subsequently conceded that the employer was required to fill the vacancy in accordance with prior minutes of settlement, and that there was no legal dispute or violation of the collective agreement.

The employer submitted that the Board lacked jurisdiction to review the matter given the absence of a dispute between the bargaining agent and the employer.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, noting the agreement of the parties that there was no legal dispute.

In a grievance challenging a demotion based on an alleged failure to accommodate a disability, the employer raised a preliminary issue arguing that other employees potentially affected by the outcome should receive notice and standing.

The Grievance Settlement Board reviewed the principles of third-party standing in arbitration and concluded that the identified individuals were not entitled to notice.

The grievance did not seek to displace the current incumbents, and any potential impact on them was contingent and indirect.

The preliminary objection was dismissed.

The union filed a grievance alleging a violation of the collective agreement.

At the commencement of the hearing, the union advised that it did not dispute the employer's position that there had been no violation.

The grievance was dismissed.

At the scheduled arbitration hearing, no representative appeared on behalf of the employer.

After waiting approximately one hour and attempting to contact the employer representative without success, the union requested an adjournment.

The Grievance Settlement Board granted the union's request and ordered the matter to be rescheduled for an early hearing date.

Following a previous decision, the employer's counsel advised the Board that cheques had been forwarded to the applicant's counsel for the outstanding amount.

The Board concluded that, subject to any party advising that issues remained outstanding, there was no need for a formal Order to Pay to issue.

The applicant, a university faculty member, filed a complaint alleging that her faculty association breached its duty of fair representation under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act regarding her harassment concerns against a colleague.

The Board found that while the applicant's requests for assistance were initially vague, the union eventually understood it was being engaged in its formal capacity.

The union claimed to be pursuing an 'informal process' for several months but could provide no concrete details or evidence of meaningful action.

The Board concluded that the union's failure to meaningfully turn its mind to the merits of the applicant's concerns, while purporting to assist her, constituted a breach of its statutory obligation.

The Board declared a breach of the Act and remained seized on the issue of damages.

Four directors appealed separate orders to pay issued against them under the Employment Standards Act.

Three of the directors failed to appear at the hearing, and their appeals were dismissed.

The remaining director, who appeared self-represented, entered into Minutes of Settlement with the Ministry of Labour regarding the outstanding balance of the orders to pay.

The adjudicator dismissed the remaining director's appeal subject to and in accordance with the terms of the settlement agreement.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent employees of the responding party.

Following a representation vote where more than fifty percent of the ballots were cast in favour of the applicant, and with no statements of desire to make representations filed, the Ontario Labour Relations Board ordered that a certificate issue to the applicant.

The applicant requested an Order to Pay following a previous decision finding that the employer violated the Employment Standards Act by failing to reinstate her after pregnancy leave and terminating her employment.

As the applicant did not make submissions on the quantum, the Board indicated it would issue an Order to Pay in the amount of $40,340.37, as set out in the previous decision, unless further written submissions were received within three weeks.

The union filed applications for certification and unfair labour practice complaints against the employer.

On the scheduled hearing date, the parties executed a Memorandum of Settlement.

The Board issued a consent order reflecting the settlement, which directed a representation vote, defined the appropriate bargaining unit, established the voting constituency, and withdrew the unfair labour practice complaints.

The grievor sought bereavement leave following the death of his great-grandmother.

The employer denied the leave, arguing that 'great-grandparent' was not explicitly listed in the collective agreement's definition of 'immediate family'.

The arbitrator found that the collective agreement used inclusive rather than exhaustive language ('shall include').

Applying a broad and purposive approach, the arbitrator concluded that a great-grandparent falls within the scope of 'immediate family', noting the inclusion of various in-law relationships and the direct line of consanguinity.

The grievance was allowed.