Grievances dismissed on preliminary objections as issues were barred by res judicata and lacked a prima facie case.
The Employer raised preliminary objections to two grievances filed by the Union on behalf of the grievor, arguing they were barred by res judicata, functus officio, and disclosed no prima facie case.
The grievances alleged improper deductions, failure to provide amended T4s following retroactive WSIB payments, and harassment related to a civil claim by the benefits provider.
The arbitrator found that the financial issues raised in the grievances had either been expressly addressed in prior decisions between the parties or ought to have been raised during those proceedings.
The remaining allegation that the employment relationship was destroyed and warranted severance pay lacked a prima facie case, as the grievor remained on WSIB leave and no facts supported a Human Rights Code violation.
The preliminary objections were upheld and the grievances were dismissed.
Employer's proposed timeline for implementing retroactive adjustments for the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation adopted.
The parties could not agree on the implementation timelines for retroactive adjustments following a decision declaring the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation a paid holiday.
The Union requested a July 1, 2024 implementation date, while the Employer proposed assigning holiday Compensating Time Off credits by August 31, 2024, and paying eligible employees by September 30, 2024.
The Arbitrator adopted the Employer's proposal as the earliest reasonable dates for implementation.
Arbitrator issues procedural directions setting a schedule for written submissions in a job competition grievance.
The matter involves a contested job competition for the position of Trial Coordinator.
The union and the employer agreed to resolve the matter by written submissions and proposed a schedule.
The incumbent third party did not object to the proposed schedule.
The arbitrator issued directions setting out the schedule for the parties to provide their written submissions, including submissions on the employer's preliminary motion to dismiss one of the grievances.
Board orders production of redacted candidate resumes and joins incumbent in job competition grievance.
In a dispute over a job competition for a Trial Coordinator position, the Grievance Settlement Board issued procedural directions following an unsuccessful mediation.
The Board joined the successful incumbent as an interested third party and ordered the Employer to produce the redacted applications and resumes of the screened-in candidates and the grievors.
The Board also set parameters for the upcoming expedited hearing, including a schedule for raising preliminary motions and evidentiary issues.
Arbitrator finds prima facie that incumbent grievors were improperly screened out of job competition interviews.
The union grieved the employer's decision to screen out three incumbent employees from an interview for a Trial Coordinator position.
The arbitrator conducted a prima facie review of the screening documentation and scoring.
The arbitrator found that the grievors were improperly excluded from the interview process, as their scores on two criteria should have been higher when compared to the successful candidates.
The arbitrator directed that the interviews should be re-done, subject to further submissions from the parties and the incumbent at the next hearing date.
Board limits remaining grievance issues to WSIB waiting period pay and employer's double payment counterclaim.
The Grievance Settlement Board determined that most issues arising from the grievances were resolved by the Minutes of Settlement signed by the parties.
The only remaining issues to be determined were the grievor's claim for 65 days' pay during the WSIB waiting period and the employer's counterclaim for double payment.
The Board set a schedule for the exchange of written particulars and documents regarding these remaining claims.
Board ordered document production subject to confidentiality conditions to expedite hearing on settlement implementation.
The Union sought clarification and production of additional documents regarding the implementation of a Memorandum of Settlement.
The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the Employer to investigate and produce arguably relevant documents.
To expedite the hearing, the Board directed the Union to prepare a summary of work assignments and imposed confidentiality conditions on the produced documents, including an implied undertaking and a restriction that the Complainant not receive copies of the documents.
Grievances resolved with ordered workplace accommodations, a three-day work week, and $2,000 in general damages.
The union filed several grievances on behalf of the grievor alleging violations of the Human Rights Code, the Occupational Health and Safety Act, and the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act regarding her workplace accommodation for mental health disabilities.
The Grievance Settlement Board issued a decision resolving all grievances, ordering a period of sick leave for medical adjustment, followed by a structured return to work with specific accommodations including a three-day work week, regular feedback, and external facilitation.
The employer was also ordered to pay $2,000 in general damages to assist in the grievor's recovery.
Hearing cancelled due to grievor's failure to provide particulars of the issue to be addressed.
The grievor requested a hearing arising from Minutes of Settlement over which the Vice-Chair remained seized.
A hearing was scheduled, but the grievor failed to provide particulars of the issue despite the employer's request.
As the parties were unable to prepare, the hearing was cancelled.
The Vice-Chair directed that particulars must be provided before any future hearing is scheduled.
Union's request for independent investigation into workplace hate mail denied as premature.
The union requested an order for the appointment of an independent investigator to investigate a racist hate mail campaign at the Toronto Jail, arguing the employer's internal investigation was inadequate.
The Grievance Settlement Board denied the request as premature, finding that the employer had made substantial efforts and that the parties must first address the implementation of recommendations from a previous review of the employer's investigation.
Employer ordered to provide investigative summaries prior to hearing on union's request for independent investigation.
The union requested a full, independent investigation into the provenance of anonymous racist letters that created a poisoned work environment at a correctional facility.
The appointed investigator provided a report, but the union was not satisfied and reiterated its request.
In preparation for the hearing on this request, the Grievance Settlement Board ordered the employer to confirm whether any other forensic behavioural profiles existed and to provide a detailed written summary of the steps taken to investigate a specific handwritten letter found in 2010.
Investigator directed to complete written report on workplace racist letters by May 31, 2012.
In an ongoing grievance arbitration concerning racist letters in the workplace, the Grievance Settlement Board received a confidential oral interim report from an appointed investigator.
The Board directed the investigator to complete the review and provide a written report by May 31, 2012, after which a further decision will be issued.
Final decision confirming implementation of systemic remedies for a poisoned work environment at the Toronto Jail.
This is the final decision in a series of mediation-arbitration proceedings addressing systemic remedies for a poisoned work environment at the Toronto Jail between 2005 and 2008.
The Vice-Chair reviewed the 48 Objectives Requiring Action agreed upon by the parties to address issues of racism, harassment, and workplace culture.
The Board concluded that, subject to an ongoing challenge regarding the investigation of hate letters, all agreed actions have been successfully carried out and implemented.
Union ordered to provide written particulars of the grievance 45 days before the next hearing.
In a grievance arbitration under the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act, the Grievance Settlement Board ordered the Union to provide written particulars of the grievance.
The particulars must be provided at least 45 days prior to the next scheduled hearing date.
Employer ordered to pay damages to correctional officers for failing to adequately address a poisoned work environment.
The union filed a policy grievance on behalf of two groups of correctional officers, alleging the employer failed to provide a workplace free from harassment and discrimination.
The workplace became poisoned due to anonymous racist and threatening hate mail, leading to severe racial divisions and a breakdown of trust among staff.
The employer admitted liability for negligence in its handling of the situation between 2005 and 2008.
The arbitrator found that while the employer did not write the letters, its response was inadequate and failed to sufficiently address the systemic issues until 2008.
The arbitrator awarded $1,500 to each affected employee in Group A and $1,000 to each affected employee in Group B for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.
Board appointed an independent reviewer to examine the Ministry's investigation into workplace hate crimes.
The Grievance Settlement Board issued a brief decision appointing Michael A. Davis to conduct a review of the Ministry's investigation into hate crimes, following consultation with the parties.
Board issues further directions on the implementation of systemic remedies for workplace discrimination and harassment.
This decision follows previous rulings dealing with systemic remedies for discrimination and harassment at the Toronto Jail.
The Grievance Settlement Board reviewed the progress of the employer and the union in implementing agreed-upon objectives, including staffing analyses, performance development plans, and human rights training.
The Board noted the withdrawal of several union proposals that were addressed by a new workplace discrimination and harassment policy, and issued further directions on the handling of future complaints.
Individual grievor lacks standing to unilaterally withdraw grievance where union has carriage and opposes withdrawal.
The individual grievor sought to withdraw his grievance regarding a poisoned work environment and hate mail at the Toronto Jail, intending to pursue his claims before the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.
The union and the employer opposed the withdrawal.
The Grievance Settlement Board denied the request, holding that the union has exclusive carriage of the grievance and the individual has no standing to withdraw it.
Furthermore, the request was made at an advanced stage of a comprehensive systemic remediation process, making withdrawal inappropriate and an abuse of process.
Employer ordered to disclose handwriting expert and recommend reviewer for workplace hate crimes investigation.
The Union raised concerns about the thoroughness and pace of the Employer's investigation into hate crimes at the Toronto Jail, specifically regarding a letter discovered in April 2010 and another received in November 2010.
The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the Employer to disclose the identity of its handwriting expert by January 31, 2011, and to recommend a candidate to review the investigations by December 17, 2010.
The Union was given deadlines to respond to these appointments, with any unresolved issues to be addressed at a subsequent hearing.
Grievance Settlement Board reviews and updates the status of systemic remedy action plans at Toronto Jail.
The Grievance Settlement Board issued a follow-up decision regarding the implementation of systemic remedies at the Toronto Jail.
The Vice-Chair reviewed the progress of various action plans, including the issuance of Standing Orders, peer coaching, dress code enforcement, staffing analysis, performance development plans, and workplace discrimination and harassment training.
Several objectives were deemed accomplished, while others remain subject to ongoing monitoring and future meetings between the union and the employer.