Christopher Albertyn

The Union sought a production order for the telematics data of six inspectors who were not part of the underground economy project, arguing it was relevant to the grievor's termination for alleged overtime fraud.

The Employer opposed the request, arguing it was a fishing expedition and the documents were not relevant.

The Arbitrator denied the request, finding no factual foundation to support the claim that the other inspectors engaged in similar conduct or that the Employer knew of any such misconduct, distinguishing the case from situations where unequal discipline for known identical misconduct was at issue.

The employer requested particulars for two grievances.

The arbitrator found that emails attached to the first grievance served as sufficient particulars.

However, the second grievance lacked a coherent explanation.

The arbitrator ordered the grievor to provide coherent particulars for the second grievance by April 12, 2024, failing which it would be dismissed for lack of arbitrability.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued a procedural decision regarding the implementation of its prior ruling that the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation was a paid holiday in 2022.

The parties agreed on the methods for calculating retroactive adjustments but not the timetable.

The Arbitrator directed the Employer to propose deadlines within 30 days, failing which a further hearing would be held.

The Arbitrator remained seized of the implementation issues, including the accumulation of seniority.

Following a prior decision declaring the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation a paid holiday in 2022, the parties disputed the method of calculating retroactive entitlements, interest, and payment timelines.

The Arbitrator issued procedural directions establishing a timetable for the Employer to provide principles for retroactive entitlements and interest, and for the Union to respond, with a further hearing scheduled if the parties cannot agree.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued a consent order directing the Employer to produce an Investigation Report and related non-privileged materials to the Union.

The production was made subject to strict confidentiality conditions, including restrictions on copying, sharing, and retention of the documents.

The parties were also directed to prepare a joint chart of incidents underlying the grievor's termination and to schedule further hearing dates for mediation or case management.

Several public sector unions filed grievances against the Crown in Right of Ontario, arguing that the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation should be recognized as a paid holiday under their respective collective agreements.

The collective agreements provided that employees were entitled to any special holiday 'proclaimed by the Governor General or Lieutenant Governor'.

The employer argued that the holiday was created by Royal Assent to a statute, rather than by an executive proclamation, and therefore did not fall within the collective agreement language.

The arbitrator rejected the employer's argument, finding that the parties intended to include any new holiday established by the federal or provincial government, and that Royal Assent by written declaration constituted a proclamation.

The grievances were upheld.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued a consent order directing the employer to produce an Investigation Report and related materials to the union.

The production was made subject to strict confidentiality conditions, including restrictions on copying, sharing, and retaining the documents.

The Board also set deadlines for production, directed the parties to prepare a joint chart of incidents related to the grievor's termination, and scheduled further hearing days for mediation and case management.

The arbitrator issued a consent order directing the Employer to produce an Investigation Report and related materials to the Union.

The production was made subject to strict confidentiality conditions, including restrictions on copying, sharing, and retaining the documents, to ensure they are used solely for the purpose of preparing for arbitration.

In a grievance arbitration concerning whether the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation is a paid holiday under various collective agreements, the employer sought to introduce evidence regarding its consultations with Indigenous partners and its reasons for treating the day as one of learning and reflection rather than a paid holiday.

The unions objected to the admission of this evidence.

The arbitrator ruled the evidence inadmissible, finding that it was irrelevant to the mutual intention of the parties at the time the collective agreements were negotiated and would cause unnecessary delay and prejudice.

The grievor was terminated from her position as a bookkeeper at a courthouse after an audit revealed she had written cheques to herself and her daughter from court funds.

She was subsequently convicted of fraud and sentenced to jail.

The union grieved the termination.

The grievor failed to attend the first two scheduled arbitration hearing dates, despite the union's efforts to contact her.

The employer requested that the grievance be dismissed.

The arbitrator declined to dismiss the grievance immediately, instead granting an adjournment to give the grievor one final opportunity to attend the next scheduled hearing date, failing which the grievance would be dismissed.

In a supplementary decision following a January 2021 arbitration award, the Grievance Settlement Board addressed the grievor's claim that double CPP and EI deductions were made from his 2013 disability benefits.

Based on the employer's submissions, the Board found that the employer was required to deduct EI and CPP from the 2021 retroactive payments, and that no double deduction occurred for 2013.

The Board noted the grievor could seek special tax treatment from the CRA for the retroactive lump-sum payment.

The matter was concluded.

The grievor sought reconsideration of a January 6, 2021 decision, claiming additional money was owed by the employer, including unpaid WSIB amounts, interest on delayed payments, and excessive tax deductions.

The arbitrator reviewed the comprehensive payments document provided by the employer and found no errors or miscalculations to support the grievor's claims.

The arbitrator dismissed the first four claims but allowed the employer an opportunity to respond to the grievor's sixth claim regarding alleged double CPP and EI deductions.

The Union filed a policy grievance alleging the Employer breached its health and safety obligations by failing to remove a roadside memorial erected outside the Elgin Middlesex Detention Centre.

The memorial, dedicated to inmates who died in custody, caused psychological harm and triggered post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms in correctional officers who were first responders to the deaths.

The Arbitrator found that the Employer failed to take every precaution reasonably necessary to protect the health and safety of the employees.

The grievance was allowed, and the Employer was ordered to remove the memorial and retain its contents for 30 days to allow families to collect their property.

The union filed a grievance claiming the grievor was short paid for the 65-day waiting period prior to receiving WSIB payments.

The employer abandoned its counterclaim for alleged double payment.

The parties exchanged documents revealing the grievor was short paid $3,652.74 for the 65-day period in 2013, and $258.51 for sick leave absences in 2014.

The arbitrator upheld the grievance and ordered the employer to pay the total amount of $3,911.25 plus interest.

The Union raised a jurisdictional challenge to the Employer's counterclaim for reimbursement of alleged double payments made to the Grievor while he was receiving WSIB benefits.

The arbitrator issued directions for the parties to provide written submissions on the jurisdictional challenge before proceeding further.

The Union filed five grievances in 2014 on behalf of the grievor, alleging failure to accommodate and other employment-related disputes.

The Employer objected, arguing the grievances were resolved by a comprehensive Memorandum of Settlement signed in August 2012.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that four of the grievances related to facts and circumstances known to the grievor prior to the settlement and were thus fully resolved by its terms.

The fifth grievance was dismissed on the basis of res judicata, as it attempted to re-litigate a claim already decided on its merits.

All five grievances were dismissed.

The union alleged that the employer breached the confidentiality provision of a settlement agreement by publishing the grievor's settlement payments on the public sector sunshine list.

The employer argued that the disclosure was required by the Public Sector Salary Disclosure Act, 1996, as the payments constituted salary under the Income Tax Act.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that the payments were income from employment and the employer was required by law to disclose them, which fell within an exception to the confidentiality provision.

The employer brought a motion to defer the hearing of a settlement grievance until a separate termination grievance involving the same complainant was determined.

The employer argued that if the termination grievance was dismissed, the settlement grievance would become moot.

The union opposed the motion, arguing for expeditious resolution of labour disputes.

The Grievance Settlement Board granted the motion, finding that proceeding with the settlement grievance could result in unnecessary time and expense if the termination grievance was ultimately dismissed.

The matter was adjourned sine die pending the outcome of the termination grievance.

The grievor was subject to an accommodation arrangement enabling her to work in Probation & Parole on secondment.

The Ministry required her to return to her home position as a Rehabilitation Officer at the Toronto South Detention Centre due to asserted operational urgency, which the union disputed.

Pending full consideration of the grievance, the Grievance Settlement Board issued interim directions extending the secondment briefly to allow for training completion and case transfer, mandating vacation use, and setting conditions for her return to the home position.

The Union filed policy and individual grievances alleging the Employer breached the collective agreement, the Human Rights Code, and the Occupational Health and Safety Act by failing to respond to media reports quoting a correctional officer and his counsel who claimed there were 'white supremacist' officers at the Toronto Jail.

The Union argued the Employer had a duty to issue public and internal statements defending non-racialized staff and mitigating the harm caused by the comments.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievances, finding that the Employer's decision to refrain from commenting on a matter before the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, while remaining ready to assist affected employees, fell within the range of reasonable responses.