Daniel A. Harris

The employer brought a motion to dismiss portions of the grievances or preclude the union from calling evidence due to a lack of particulars regarding allegations of discrimination, harassment, and a poisoned work environment.

In the alternative, the employer sought an order for particulars.

The Grievance Settlement Board declined to dismiss the grievances or preclude evidence, noting the importance of hearing the dispute on its merits and the protracted nature of the proceedings.

However, the Board ordered the union to provide crisp and clear particulars of the facts upon which it intended to rely, following the standard set out in Ross.

The Union grieved the discharge of a hotline operator who was terminated for an alleged conflict of interest involving her ownership of a retail store.

During the investigation, the Employer used videotape surveillance to observe the grievor working at her store while she was on sick leave.

The Union objected to the admissibility of the surveillance evidence, arguing it was an unreasonable intrusion into the grievor's privacy.

The Grievance Settlement Board applied a two-part test and found that the Employer had reasonable cause to suspect a conflict of interest and misuse of sick leave, making the decision to undertake surveillance reasonable.

The evidence was ruled admissible.

The Union requested that discipline levied against several corrections officers for an alleged assault on an inmate be declared void due to the Employer's delay in imposing it.

The grievors were suspended pending investigation in February 2001, and formal discipline was imposed in November 2001.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the request, finding that the delay did not cause inherent prejudice given the extraordinary nature of the allegations, nor could the Employer be reasonably seen to have condoned the behaviour.

The grievors, correctional officers facing discipline and a civil suit for an alleged assault on an inmate, requested that the Grievance Settlement Board proceedings be held in camera.

They argued that an open hearing would prejudice them in the civil suit and compromise institutional security.

The Board denied the request, emphasizing the strong public interest in open proceedings, particularly in cases involving allegations of assault by correctional officers.

The Board noted that the civil courts would determine the appropriate use of any evidence given at the hearing.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of the grievor.

A hearing was scheduled before the Grievance Settlement Board.

Despite numerous messages and correspondence from the union and its counsel, the grievor failed to attend the hearing and did not assist in preparation.

After waiting an hour, the union withdrew the grievance.

The union brought an application for interim compensation pending the hearing of six grievances alleging improper suspension without pay.

The interim application hearing commenced on September 5, 2001, but was not completed.

The Vice-Chair directed that the interim application continue on September 18, 2001, and that the hearing on the merits commence immediately thereafter to ensure a speedy conclusion.

The grievor was denied long-term income protection (LTIP) benefits and filed a grievance seeking an order confirming eligibility.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the grievance was inarbitrable because the collective agreement only obliged the employer to pay the premiums for the insurance plan, not to provide the benefits directly.

Applying the framework from Weber and Dubreuil, the Grievance Settlement Board found that the plain language of the collective agreement indicated an intention to provide benefits through an insurance plan, without incorporating the master contracts by reference.

As the employer's only obligation was to pay premiums, the dispute over benefit entitlement was not within the ambit of the collective agreement and was therefore inarbitrable.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of an abatement officer who was unsuccessful in a job competition for an investigations officer position.

The union alleged the interview process was fundamentally flawed because it overvalued generic investigative techniques and undervalued substantive environmental knowledge.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the interview questions disproportionately emphasized investigative process, failing to adequately test environmental knowledge as required by the position specification.

Furthermore, the selection panel relied on an erroneous impression of the grievor's past performance without checking his personnel file or performance appraisals, which would have confirmed his competence.

The Board declared the job competition fatally flawed, allowed the grievance, and ordered that the grievor be awarded the next comparable position with full compensation for monetary losses.

The grievor was declared surplus and unsuccessfully applied for an Application Processor position.

Following a settlement of prior grievances, she was given a re-run interview but failed to achieve the required passing score of 70 out of 110.

The union argued the interview was flawed due to disproportionate weighting of a question and inaccurate recording of answers.

The Grievance Settlement Board assessed whether a prima facie case was made out.

The Board found that even if the grievor's scores were adjusted to reflect her best-case scenario based on her own evidence, she would still fall short of the passing threshold.

The grievance was dismissed.

The union filed multiple grievances on behalf of a civil court registrar, an unclassified employee, alleging violations of the collective agreement regarding scheduling, work assignments, and anti-union discrimination.

The core issue was whether the grievor was entitled to be paid for 7.25 hours per day regardless of the actual hours worked.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the substantive grievances, finding that the collective agreement explicitly excluded unclassified employees from the 'normal hours of work' provision.

The Board also dismissed grievances alleging anti-union animus and unjust discipline related to the grievor's practice of incorrectly recording 7.25 hours on his timesheets contrary to employer instructions, and regarding the summer lay-off process.

The employer raised a preliminary objection to the arbitrability of a grievance claiming disability benefits, arguing that the union's withdrawal of a similar grievance in a different matter created an estoppel or rendered the issue res judicata.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the objection, finding that the parties and objects of the two grievances were not identical, and the withdrawal of the prior grievance did not constitute a final determination or a representation on which the employer could detrimentally rely.

The grievor was reclassified from an EO3 to an EO4 position in 1993, receiving a three percent increase.

In 1997, he grieved that he was not placed on the same step of the EO4 grid as he had been on the EO3 grid.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding it was clearly out of time.

The grievor received a surplus notice in 1997 and filed a grievance in 1999 alleging the surplusing was contrary to the collective agreement.

Both the union and the employer agreed that the grievance was filed out of time and contended that the arbitrator lacked jurisdiction to hear it because neither party wished to have it arbitrated.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance in accordance with prior jurisprudence.

The grievor, a field instrument technician, was declared surplus and offered a position as a senior environmental officer in the Spills Action Centre.

He declined the position, arguing he was not minimally qualified to perform the work and thus should be allowed to bump into a different position.

The union grieved, asserting the employer violated the collective agreement by offering a position the grievor could not perform.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the grievor possessed the minimum competence required for the major components of the position, given his 25 years of experience, previous emergency response experience, and the prescriptive nature of the new role which included on-the-job orientation.

The union filed a group grievance regarding the allocation of overtime.

The grievance was advanced to stage 2 but was not advanced to stage 3 until 18 months later due to the union representative's absence and subsequent unexplained delay.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the grievance was inarbitrable due to untimeliness.

The Grievance Settlement Board declined to exercise its discretion under s. 48(16) of the Labour Relations Act to extend the time limits, finding no reasonable explanation for the lengthy delay and noting prejudice to the employer due to fading memories.

The grievance was dismissed as inarbitrable.