Dan Harris

The Association sought the production of documents in a consolidated grievance arbitration concerning remote work.

The grievors, Senior Program Administrators, worked remotely during the COVID-19 pandemic and subsequently sought Alternate Work Arrangements (AWAs).

The Arbitrator ordered the Employer to produce documents relating to AWA requests managed by a specific supervisor, the decision to make the position remote during the pandemic, and all internal communications and notes regarding the consideration of the complainants' AWA requests.

During a grievance arbitration regarding a five-day suspension, the Union brought an evidentiary motion seeking to test the Employer's compliance with a prior production order for emails and text messages.

The Employer initially claimed the emails could not be found, but later produced some after renewed efforts.

The Arbitrator ordered the Employer to call viva voce evidence detailing its search efforts before the cross-examination of its witness could commence, emphasizing the Board's duty to oversee compliance with its orders.

The employer requested particulars regarding a series of grievances alleging discrimination, harassment, and failure to accommodate the grievor's disability over a lengthy period.

Following a conference call, the Grievance Settlement Board ordered the union to provide full particulars to the employer by a specified date.

The union filed a grievance alleging the employer breached a Memorandum of Settlement during a job competition re-run.

The union claimed the employer breached the confidentiality clause by discussing interview arrangements in a public setting and that the interview process was flawed because the written test was not handwritten and the scoring was unfair.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding no breach of the confidentiality clause and concluding that the competition process was reasonably fair and consistent.

The arbitrator held that there were no flaws in the process severe enough to justify the extraordinary remedy of placing the grievor directly into the position.

The union brought an application to consolidate two grievances filed on behalf of the grievor.

The first grievance related to a 20-month suspension with pay pending an investigation into a 'water club' run by the grievor, which allegedly caused severe mental and physical health issues.

The second grievance related to the employer's refusal to honor the grievor's surplus election form, which was submitted two weeks late, allegedly due to the health effects of the suspension.

The employer resisted consolidation, citing a lack of particulars.

The Vice-Chair granted the application to consolidate, finding sufficient commonality in the facts and legal questions, particularly regarding the medical evidence, to avoid inconsistent findings and provide procedural efficiencies.

The grievor, a correctional officer, was discharged after being convicted as a party to a vicious assault on an inmate.

The union grieved the discharge, arguing that mitigating factors warranted a lesser penalty.

The Grievance Settlement Board applied the Supreme Court's decision in Toronto (City) v. C.U.P.E. to preclude relitigation of the facts underlying the criminal conviction.

The Board found that the employer established just cause for discharge, noting the grievor's participation in the assault, his attempts to cover it up, his intimidation of a fellow officer, and his lack of candour throughout the proceedings.

The grievance was dismissed.

In an interim decision regarding the admissibility of a statement taken during an internal fraud investigation, the union objected to the employer questioning the investigator about the statement.

The union argued the statement was inadmissible because the maker was denied union representation and Charter rights.

The arbitrator declined to hold a voir dire or rule the statement inadmissible at this stage, instead allowing the employer to question the investigator and enter the statement into evidence, leaving the determination of its weight to the end of the case.

The union filed several grievances which proceeded to mediation-arbitration.

Following submissions from the parties, the Vice-Chair dismissed the grievances, noting that the decision has no precedential value pursuant to Article 22.16.7 of the collective agreement.

In an arbitration regarding the discharge of a claims adjudicator for alleged fraud, the employer sought to introduce a recorded statement from a co-conspirator without calling the maker as a witness.

The union objected on the grounds of hearsay.

The Grievance Settlement Board ruled the statement inadmissible, finding it was neither necessary, as the maker was available to testify, nor reliable, as it was a repudiated confession from an interested party.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the discharge grievances of four correctional officers who were convicted of assaulting an inmate.

The employer argued that proceeding with the grievances would be an abuse of process and frivolous, relying on the criminal court's sentencing reasons and the restrictions on substituted penalties under the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the preliminary motion, holding that while it must give full effect to the criminal convictions, the union is still entitled to lead evidence and make submissions regarding the mitigation of the penalty.

The grievor was discharged from her employment as a seasonal parks clerk for misappropriating over $16,000 in gate receipts.

She subsequently pled guilty and was convicted of theft in criminal court.

At the grievance arbitration, the employer sought a ruling that the criminal conviction constituted conclusive evidence of the theft under the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act and the Public Service Act.

The Board agreed, finding the conviction established just cause for discipline as a matter of law.

However, the Board granted an adjournment to allow the union to present evidence regarding mitigation of the penalty, as the grievor was unable to participate due to her mental health.

The grievor, a court services employee, filed multiple grievances regarding accommodation and discipline.

The arbitrator found that the employer failed to adequately accommodate the grievor's medical work restriction on one day and ordered compensation.

However, claims for subsequent days were dismissed as the grievor either refused reasonable assignments or no suitable work was available.

The arbitrator also upheld progressive discipline, culminating in a 15-day suspension, imposed after the grievor repeatedly refused to meet with a supervisor without a tape recorder or union representation, finding the refusals insubordinate.

The union filed a grievance alleging that the employer violated the Ontario Human Rights Code by denying the grievor the ability to apply and work for the Ontario Public Service during his pension bridging.

The matter was dealt with by written submissions.

The employer took the position that there was no violation of the collective agreement or the Code, and the union did not disagree.

Finding no indication of discriminatory treatment, the Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance.

The employer raised a preliminary objection regarding the Board's jurisdiction to hear a grievance claiming improper compensation for work performed as a payroll clerk.

The Vice-Chair determined that the grievance was essentially a claim of improper classification.

As the Board lacks jurisdiction over classification grievances, the matter was referred to the Joint System Subcommittee to be heard with another related grievance.

The union grieved on behalf of a correctional officer who successfully bid on a temporary job posting for a lower-paying driver examiner position.

The union argued that under Article 8.3 of the collective agreement, the grievor's higher wage rate should be protected during the temporary assignment.

The employer argued that wage protection only applies to direct assignments, not voluntary job postings.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the active component of 'assigned' in Article 8.3 requires the employer to assign the employee from one position to another, and does not apply when an employee voluntarily posts to a job.

Following a mediation/arbitration hearing, the Grievance Settlement Board ordered the employer to pay the grievor $100.00 to resolve grievances relating to maternity/paternity leave top-up.