Brian McLean

The union requested an adjournment of a scheduled hearing date due to the grievor's 'family emergency', following a previous adjournment for a medical appointment.

The employer opposed the adjournment and sought dismissal of the grievances, arguing the grievor failed to provide adequate documentation for his absences as ordered by the Board.

The Arbitrator found the grievor demonstrated a lack of interest in advancing his grievances by failing to provide the required documentation and failing to comply with the Board's order.

The employer's motion was granted and the grievances were dismissed.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to strike certain particulars provided by the union in a grievance alleging discrimination.

The original grievance and discussions at the formal resolution stage meeting focused on discrimination based on union activity, denial of compassionate leave, and vacation treatment.

The union later provided particulars adding allegations of discrimination based on religion and ancestry, including incidents from a 2014 party.

The arbitrator held that adding new grounds of discrimination constituted an improper expansion of the grievance, as the grievor had made a deliberate choice to grieve only anti-union discrimination initially.

The allegations regarding the 2014 party were also struck as untimely.

The employer's motion was granted in part, and the union was directed to provide proper dates for remaining allegations.

The Association (AMAPCEO) filed grievances alleging that a co-worker (B) deliberately assaulted the grievor in the workplace and that the subsequent investigation was tainted by racial bias.

AMAPCEO sought an order preventing the grievor and B from working together.

B and her union (OPSEU) brought a motion to intervene in the arbitration to protect B's reputation and collective agreement rights.

The arbitrator granted the motion to intervene on a limited basis, finding a reasonable potential for conflict between the interests of B and the employer regarding the factual findings of the alleged assault and the potential remedy.

The union grieved the employer's failure to offer Tier 1 overtime opportunities to Tier 3 employees, specifically the grievor.

The employer admitted the breach of the collective agreement but argued the grievor was not qualified to perform the work and would not have accepted the shifts anyway.

The arbitrator found that the grievor was capable of performing the Tier 1 work.

However, based on the evidence, the arbitrator concluded that the grievor would not have accepted the overtime shifts had they been offered.

Therefore, no monetary remedy was awarded.

The union filed grievances alleging a failure to accommodate.

The parties appeared before the Grievance Settlement Board to make submissions on whether the next hearing date should be adjourned and on certain production issues.

The arbitrator granted the adjournment request because the grievor was scheduled to participate in a criminal trial.

The arbitrator also ordered the employer and the union to produce specific documents related to the grievor's medical status, accommodations, shift scheduling, and written communications.

The union requested an adjournment on the day of the hearing because the grievor was absent due to an unparticularized family emergency.

The employer opposed the adjournment, noting a previous adjournment had been granted based on a specialist appointment that turned out to be a physiotherapy appointment.

The arbitrator granted the adjournment but ordered the grievor to provide a written explanation for his absence and documentation confirming his previous medical appointment, warning that failure to do so could result in the grievance being dismissed.

The parties agreed to a bottom-line decision without reasons under Article 22.16 of the collective agreement.

The arbitrator found in favour of the union on both the red circling issue and the collective agreement duration issue.

The Association filed a grievance alleging a breach of the Respectful Workplace Policy, workplace discrimination and harassment, and a dispute over the complainant's salary during temporary assignments.

The Arbitrator ordered the Employer to pay the complainant $6,500 in general damages for the harassment and discrimination allegations.

The Arbitrator also ordered the complainant to repay approximately $5,400 to $5,500 in disputed salary received during a temporary assignment, while finding the Employer was not entitled to repayment for a subsequent period.

The union grieved a letter of counsel issued to a probation and parole officer, alleging it was unjust discipline, and also alleged harassment and discrimination by her manager.

The grievor had refused to follow her manager's direction not to enter a specific note in the Offender Tracking Information System (OTIS) regarding a child sex offender's file.

The arbitrator found that although the employer labeled the letter as non-disciplinary counseling, its finding of insubordination made it disciplinary in nature.

However, the arbitrator concluded there was just cause for the discipline because the grievor deliberately disregarded a clear direction.

The arbitrator also dismissed the harassment and discrimination claims, finding the manager's actions were either innocuous or reasonably explained, and did not constitute a pattern of improper conduct.

The union filed a grievance alleging the employer violated the collective agreement by failing to offer overtime to Tier 3 employees.

At step 1 of the grievance procedure, the employer acknowledged the error and committed to posting overtime for both classifications in the future, but declined to pay the requested compensation.

The union advanced the grievance to step 2, where the employer denied the grievance, stating it was unfeasible for Tier 3 employees to perform the work.

The union raised a preliminary issue, arguing the step 1 response was a binding concession on liability.

The arbitrator agreed, finding the employer's step 1 response was a clear and unequivocal admission of a breach, leaving only the issue of remedy to be determined.

The union referred grievances to arbitration under the collective agreement.

The parties agreed to proceed under the expedited procedure in Article 22.16.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievances in an oral decision at the hearing, and issued this written award confirming the dismissal without written reasons, in accordance with the parties' policy for expedited hearings.

The union filed a grievance alleging the grievor was improperly denied compensation for using his personal cell phone for work activities, claiming the employer exercised its management rights unfairly.

The matter was referred to expedited mediation/arbitration under the collective agreement.

The arbitrator denied the grievance without written reasons, in accordance with the parties' policy for expedited hearings.

The applicant filed an application for review under section 116 of the Employment Standards Act, 2000.

The parties reached a settlement agreement pursuant to subsection 120(4) of the Act.

At the request of the parties, the Board adjourned the application sine die for a period not exceeding one year, on the condition that the application will terminate without notice once the settlement terms are fulfilled or one year passes.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board cancelled a representation vote scheduled for January 3, in view of the results of a representation vote held on December 20, 2001.

The Board noted it would advise the parties regarding future hearing dates and the issues to be determined.

The employer requested that the Ontario Labour Relations Board dismiss the application in accordance with minutes of settlement.

The Board ordered that unless the applicant advised otherwise by January 5, 2001, the application would be dismissed.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent academic staff at the University of Sudbury.

A representation vote was held, and more than fifty percent of the ballots cast were in favour of the applicant.

The employer raised issues regarding the conduct of the vote, but the Board found that even if all disputed votes were cast against the applicant, the union would still have majority support.

Accordingly, the Board directed that a certificate issue to the applicant.

The applicants requested reconsideration of a Board decision that dismissed their application without a hearing.

The applicants argued that the Board was required to hold a hearing under various provisions of the Labour Relations Act, including reverse onus provisions.

The Board found that the reverse onus provisions did not apply to the facts alleged and that it had complied with the Act by giving the parties a full opportunity to make written submissions.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

The applicant filed an application alleging the union violated section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, indicating only that he lost his employment.

The Board dismissed the application without prejudice because it failed to provide a detailed statement of material facts or the remedies requested, as required by the Board's Rules of Procedure.

The applicant filed an application to terminate the bargaining rights of the responding party union.

The Board found the application timely and noted that over forty percent of the employees in the bargaining unit had expressed a wish not to be represented by the union.

The Board consolidated this termination application with two pending certification applications filed by other unions.

The Board directed that the representation vote scheduled for the certification applications, which included a 'no-union' option, would also determine the outcome of this termination application.

The responding party's objections to the consolidation were dismissed.

The parties agreed to adjourn the hearing of the employment standards appeal.

The Board adjourned the matter to a date to be set by the Registrar.