Brian Sheehan

The union grieved a 3-day suspension issued to a correctional officer following a physical altercation with an inmate.

The employer imposed the discipline on the basis that the grievor used excessive force and submitted inaccurate occurrence reports, as the CCTV footage contradicted his narrative.

The arbitrator found that while the inmate initiated the physical altercation, the grievor could have extricated himself from the situation and his action in approaching the inmate directly led to the altercation.

The arbitrator also accepted that the grievor's reports were inaccurate.

The grievance was dismissed.

The Union filed a policy grievance alleging the Employer violated the collective agreement by assigning a non-bargaining unit employee (the Secretary to the Superintendent) to perform temperature checks on staff during the COVID-19 pandemic on an overtime basis.

The work had previously been performed by bargaining unit members.

The Arbitrator upheld the grievance, finding that allowing a non-bargaining unit employee to perform work regularly done by the bargaining unit undermined the integrity of the bargaining unit and violated the collective agreement's implied restrictions and overtime protocols.

The issue of the appropriate remedy was remitted back to the parties, as the matter of remedial relief for such violations was currently being litigated in another proceeding before the Grievance Settlement Board.

The grievor, a Correctional Officer, alleged that the Employer delayed processing his Record of Employment and EI pay stubs, which delayed his receipt of parental leave top-up pay under the collective agreement.

He sought 24 hours of overtime pay for the time spent communicating with the Employer and Service Canada.

The Arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that any delay was largely attributable to Service Canada's standard administrative processes and that the Employer's actions did not amount to an egregious mishandling warranting remedial relief.

The grievor, a correctional officer, was issued a 10-day suspension for misconduct including unauthorized cell phone use, misusing government IT resources, abandoning his post, and consuming food at his workstation.

The employer discovered the misconduct by reviewing video surveillance footage from two days prior to the shift in question, while investigating a separate issue regarding protective eyewear.

The union grieved the discipline, arguing the employer's use of video surveillance breached the collective agreement.

The arbitrator found the union's argument regarding the video surveillance had some cogency and determined the 10-day suspension was excessive given the grievor's prior disciplinary record.

The grievance was allowed in part, and the suspension was reduced to 5 days.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of a warehouse worker who was not paid for a shift he missed.

The worker claimed he was denied entry due to COVID-19 screening protocols after his son had a fever, despite a negative test.

The employer maintained the worker called in to say he was taking his son for a test and would not be at work.

The arbitrator preferred the employer's version of events based on contemporaneous emails.

Because the worker was absent and had no remaining sick credits, the employer's decision not to pay him did not violate the collective agreement.

The grievance was dismissed.

During an expedited mediation/arbitration proceeding, the grievor abruptly left the video conference without explanation.

The arbitrator noted that a grievor must make reasonable efforts to participate in the adjudication of their grievance, and an unexplained departure could be viewed as abandonment.

The arbitrator ordered the grievor to attend the next scheduled session, failing which the grievance may be deemed withdrawn.

The grievor, a Correctional Officer, sent an unsolicited email to a manager containing a human rights tribunal decision regarding a coworker's ongoing issues.

The Employer issued a non-disciplinary Letter of Expectation regarding the tone and content of the email.

The Union grieved, alleging the letter was inappropriate, constituted bullying and harassment, and was motivated by anti-union animus.

The Arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding no jurisdiction to assess just cause for a non-disciplinary letter, and concluding that the issuance of the letter did not constitute harassment or anti-union animus.

The grievor, a correctional officer with over 25 years of service, grieved his termination for allegedly displaying bullying conduct, using excessive force on an inmate, and failing to submit an occurrence report.

The incident involved the grievor confiscating liquid soap from an inmate and following him into a shower stall, where the inmate alleged the grievor physically pinned him and used abusive language.

The arbitrator applied the Faryna v. Chorny test for credibility and preferred the inmate's evidence, noting it was corroborated by a registered nurse and video evidence.

Given the grievor's prior 15-day suspension for similar misconduct and his lack of remorse, the arbitrator found just cause for termination and dismissed the grievance.

The grievor, a Correctional Officer, grieved a Letter of Reprimand issued for failing to complete an accurate and fulsome Use of Force Incident Report and failing to maintain proper key control during an incident involving an inmate and a co-worker.

The arbitrator found that the grievor neglected to capture key details of the incident in her report and failed to maintain control over her keys as required by policy.

The grievance was dismissed, and the Letter of Reprimand was upheld as a reasonable disciplinary response.

The grievor, a Correctional Officer, was cleared to return to work from an extended medical absence on Easter Monday, a paid holiday.

The employer delayed her return to work until the following day, Tuesday, citing the need for reorientation and job familiarization, and a reluctance to pay premium holiday rates for orientation time.

The union grieved, arguing the delay was unreasonable and discriminatory under the Human Rights Code.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding the employer's decision to delay the return to work by one day was reasonable and made in good faith, as it was legitimate to anticipate that an employee returning from an extended absence would require some downtime for reorientation.

The grievor applied for an Assistant Business Administrator position but did not meet the benchmark score.

When the position was reposted with a broader geographic scope, the grievor applied again but was not granted an interview.

The union filed a grievance alleging inequitable hiring practices and sought disclosure of all competition documents.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that the employer was under no general obligation to disclose the requested documents and that the decision not to grant the grievor an interview in the expanded second competition was not unreasonable.

The grievor, a correctional officer with a permanent disability, alleged that his scheduling manager repeatedly failed to respect his accommodation plan and violated his privacy by discussing his accommodation needs publicly.

The arbitrator found insufficient evidence to support the claims, noting that the alleged scheduling errors did not demonstrate intentional disregard for the accommodation plan, and the conversation regarding the grievor's schedule did not improperly disclose the nature of his disability or specific accommodation details.

The grievance was dismissed.

The grievor, a Rehabilitation Officer, attended a Correctional Services Recognition Ceremony on her regular day off and sought compensation for her attendance.

The Employer paid her mileage but refused to pay her for the day.

The Arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that the grievor's attendance was not mandated or ordered by the Employer, and therefore she was not 'at work' or working on behalf of the Employer.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of an employee who was denied payment for a personal/emergency leave day.

The employee requested the leave on the Friday before a statutory holiday long weekend but refused to provide a reason for the request, citing privacy.

The employer had a long-standing practice requiring a doctor's note for absences adjacent to statutory holidays and requiring reasons for emergency leave requests.

The arbitrator found the employer's decision to deny the paid leave was reasonable given the employee's refusal to provide a reason and the timing of the request.

The grievance was dismissed.

The union filed a grievance alleging that the grievor was bypassed for an overtime opportunity prior to his scheduled shift.

The arbitrator found that the employer's records established a telephone call was placed to the grievor regarding the overtime opportunity, but no response was recorded.

As the grievor was canvassed, there was no violation of the collective agreement.

The grievance was dismissed.

The grievor, a Correctional Officer, filed a grievance alleging the Employer failed to provide reasonable health and safety precautions and that she was subjected to harassment and bullying by a supervisor following an incident with a non-compliant inmate.

The arbitrator found that while the supervisor did not act with hostility, his persistent attempts to verbally engage the upset grievor were inappropriate and beyond the reasonable norm expected of a supervisor.

The grievance was partially upheld, and the grievor was awarded compensation for seven missed shifts.

The union filed a grievance alleging the employer failed to take every reasonable precaution for the safety of correctional officers during a brief transfer of power from a sub control module.

The arbitrator found that while the sergeant took several steps to ensure safety, he failed to obtain confirmation that all inmates were secure in their cells before directing the power transfer.

The arbitrator issued a declaration that the employer failed to satisfy its obligations under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, but declined to order further remedial relief as the failure was an inadvertent oversight.

Two correctional officers filed a grievance alleging that a supervisor improperly threatened one of them with discipline for insubordination after he raised a health and safety concern regarding cell inspections.

They also alleged that the supervisor interfered with their duties as Union Stewards and engaged in demeaning behaviour by ordering them to stand in a hallway.

The Arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that the supervisor had a legitimate basis to warn of insubordination because the officer refused a clear direction without an imminent health and safety threat.

The Arbitrator also found no improper interference with union representation or behaviour amounting to harassment or bullying.

The Union filed policy and group grievances alleging the Employer failed to provide a healthy and safe working environment regarding air quality at the Sudbury Jail.

Prior to the hearing on the merits, the Employer brought a preliminary motion to limit the scope of the evidence to events occurring within 30 days or one year before the grievance was filed.

The Union argued the Employer had waived its right to bring preliminary objections when it agreed to bifurcate the hearing.

The Grievance Settlement Board found no such waiver occurred.

Balancing the Union's need to prove a systematic failure against the prejudice to the Employer from the passage of time, the Board limited the scope of the evidence to events occurring no more than three years before the date of the filing of the group grievance.

The applicant, a not-for-profit organization serving newcomers from Mainland China, alleged that the Ministry of Citizenship and Immigration and its officials discriminated against it on the basis of ethnic origin and place of origin by reducing and ultimately denying its Newcomer Settlement Program (NSP) funding.

The applicant claimed that a Ministry official from Hong Kong was biased against the applicant because it was operated by individuals from Mainland China.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario dismissed the application, finding that the Ministry conducted a thorough and fair evaluation process and that the applicant failed to satisfy the mandated eligibility criteria for NSP funding.

The Tribunal concluded there was no evidence connecting the funding decisions to the prohibited grounds.