Daniel Harris

The Grievance Settlement Board heard a preliminary motion regarding document exchange, particulars, and the scope of the grievances.

The arbitrator ordered the parties to exchange arguably relevant documents and particulars by specified dates in January 2019.

The arbitrator also ruled that if the grievances include systemic incidents of harassment or discrimination, the evidence at the hearing will be limited to three years prior to December 1, 2017.

The arbitrator previously ordered the employer to re-run a job competition.

The parties could not agree on the logistics.

The union insisted that the incumbents be compelled to re-compete for the jobs they were awarded four years ago.

The employer proposed to establish a benchmark score and place any successful grievors in the positions without requiring incumbents to re-compete.

The arbitrator agreed with the employer, finding no labour relations purpose in requiring incumbents to re-compete, and directed the employer to run the competition in accordance with the Board's jurisprudence.

The Union filed a job-posting grievance regarding a competition for the Enforcement Services Officer position.

The arbitrator exercised discretion under Article 22.16 of the collective agreement to order a re-run of the job competition, noting that the best possible outcome for the grievors would be a re-run rather than direct placement into the positions.

The arbitrator remitted the logistics of the re-run to the parties.

The Employer requested an adjournment of the hearing scheduled for July 6, 2018, due to the unexpected illness of its counsel.

The Employer was unable to find a replacement.

The Arbitrator granted the adjournment, noting the absence of counsel and the lack of other productive activities that could be accomplished on that date.

The Union grieved that the Employer breached Minutes of Settlement by failing to pay the grievor for 15 vacation days.

The Employer had paid the grievor for 5.8 days, arguing that this was the actual amount in her vacation bank and that the agreement only required paying out her accrued vacation up to 15 days.

The Arbitrator found that the clear and unequivocal language of the Minutes of Settlement evidenced an intention to pay the grievor a lump sum equivalent to 15 vacation days, regardless of her actual accrual.

The grievance was allowed and the Employer was ordered to pay the remaining 10.2 days.

The parties appeared before the Grievance Settlement Board to address four outstanding union grievances.

Two of the grievances were resolved pursuant to Minutes of Settlement.

Having regard to the submissions of the parties, the arbitrator dismissed the remaining two grievances.

In a grievance arbitration, the Grievance Settlement Board ordered the employer to produce portions of Professional Development Plans completed by investigators in the Correctional Investigation and Security Unit in September/October 2012.

The Board also ordered a staff inspector to produce his written calendar and any notebook/logbook kept from April to October 2012.

The union filed a grievance seeking indemnification for the grievor's legal costs incurred in defending a criminal charge of assault against an inmate, of which he was acquitted.

The collective agreement provided for indemnification where an employee is found not guilty 'because of acts done in good faith'.

The employer argued the arbitrator must independently determine if the acts were done in good faith, while the union argued the arbitrator must defer to the criminal court's reasons.

The arbitrator held that the specific language of the collective agreement linked the entitlement to indemnification to the reasons for the criminal court's acquittal.

Since the trial judge explicitly found the grievor acted in good faith, the condition for indemnification was met.

The grievance was allowed.

During a grievance arbitration regarding alleged excessive discipline and workplace harassment, the employer brought an application to restrict the union from calling evidence about events that occurred after the grievances were filed.

The events involved a vacation request and the removal of newspaper articles about the grievor's previous successful discrimination litigation.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the application, finding that the union had provided particulars of these events three years prior, they formed part of the narrative arc, and it was too late for the employer to object.

The union filed a policy grievance concerning the interpretation of 'gross pay' in the collective agreement.

Following representations and agreements between the parties, the arbitrator issued a declaration.

The arbitrator found that 'gross pay' includes payments for Sunday work, authorized holiday work, acting for the store manager, night shift work, and overtime, with the interpretation taking effect on February 1, 2017.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued a mutual document production order in a grievance alleging workplace harassment and discrimination.

The Employer and the Union were ordered to produce various documents, including medical records, investigation reports, and correspondence, subject to claims of privilege and confidentiality agreements.

In a grievance arbitration concerning a five-day suspension and allegations of harassment, two issues arose regarding document production.

The employer sought unredacted medical records of the grievor and the union's notes from interviews with coworkers, while the union sought to compel the employer to disclose the identity of any medical expert reviewing the records.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that the identity of the employer's medical expert is protected by litigation privilege.

The Board also found that the union's interview notes were not protected by litigation privilege, as their dominant purpose was preparation for an allegation meeting rather than litigation, and ordered their production at the close of the employer's case.

The union grieved that the employee did not receive sufficient training on the Attendance Support and Management Program prior to its implementation.

The employee had been placed into level 3 of the program due to absences but was later removed based on his attendance history.

The Grievance Settlement Board found no breach of the collective agreement and dismissed the grievance.

The employer brought a motion to dismiss several individual grievances filed by probation and parole officers in the Guns and Gangs Unit, arguing the union's particulars did not disclose a prima facie case.

The union alleged that the employer's failure to promptly fill a vacancy and backfill positions led to increased workloads, causing significant stress and safety concerns in violation of the collective agreement and the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the employer's motion, finding that the union's particulars, taken as true, provided sufficient detail to establish a prima facie breach of the health and safety and management rights provisions.

The Grievance Settlement Board heard submissions regarding the grievances of two Correctional Officers.

The Board ordered that all six grievances be heard together, without prejudice to either party bringing procedural objections or motions on any of the grievances.

During a grievance arbitration concerning the discharge of a correctional officer for alleged excessive force, the employer sought to call a Ministry employee as an expert witness on use of force.

The union objected to the expert providing an opinion on the specific facts of the case, arguing that the tribunal did not need expert assistance and that the proposed expert lacked impartiality due to his employment and prior assistance to the Crown at the grievor's criminal trial.

The arbitrator ruled the expert evidence admissible, applying the Mohan and WBLI tests.

The arbitrator found that the technical aspects of use of force in a correctional facility met the necessity criterion, and that the expert's employment and prior involvement went to the weight of the evidence rather than its admissibility, as there was no evidence he was unwilling or unable to discharge his duty to be independent and impartial.

The union grieved the discharge of a correctional officer who was terminated for using excessive force against an inmate during a strip search.

The incident, captured on video, showed the inmate tossing his sweater toward the grievor, who reacted by punching the inmate in the back of the head and taking him to the ground.

The arbitrator found that the inmate posed no threat and that the grievor's use of force was unnecessary, unlawful, and contrary to his training.

Given the grievor's short service, failure to take responsibility, and the serious nature of the misconduct, the grievance was dismissed and the discharge upheld.

The union grieved the discharge of an employee for alleged infractions while operating a tunnel car.

The employer sought to introduce evidence from two managers who viewed a video recording of the grievor's actions before the video was inadvertently overwritten due to a technical error.

The union brought a motion to exclude the managers' testimony, arguing it was hearsay and not the best evidence.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the motion, finding that the managers' testimony was admissible secondary evidence of what they observed on the video, not hearsay, and that its probative value outweighed any prejudicial effect.

The union and the employer brought preliminary motions regarding particulars in a grievance arbitration.

The union sought an order for the employer to provide full particulars, while the employer sought to strike out portions of the union's 92-page particulars.

On the agreement of the parties, the Vice-Chair ordered that no further particulars were necessary, the union's particulars would stand as the grievor's examination-in-chief, and set a schedule for the exchange of arguably relevant documents.

The employer proposed to call an expert witness to provide opinion evidence on whether the grievor, a correctional officer, complied with use of force regulations and policies during an incident with an inmate.

The union brought a motion to exclude the portion of the expert's evidence relating directly to the application of force by the grievor.

The Grievance Settlement Board ruled that the expert opinion evidence is admissible and denied the union's motion.