Daniel Harris

The union filed 12 grievances alleging health and safety violations under the collective agreement at probation and parole offices in Toronto.

Following unsuccessful mediation, the Grievance Settlement Board ordered the union to provide full particulars to the employer by August 17, 2015, and to produce the relied-upon medical documentation by November 1, 2015.

The union filed grievances on behalf of a correctional officer who suffered PTSD after being assaulted by a colleague.

Following several adjournments due to the grievor's medical unfitness to proceed, the employer requested that hearing dates be set and that the union provide particulars.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the union to provide particulars by June 16, 2015, and a medical report regarding the grievor's fitness to proceed by September 30, 2015.

The Board also directed the Registrar to schedule four days for the hearing on the merits.

The union brought a motion for summary judgment alleging the employer breached minutes of settlement.

The settlement placed the grievor in a 12-month temporary assignment as a Probation and Parole Officer, requiring him to complete training and meet job requirements to become permanent, or be returned to his home position as a Correctional Officer.

The grievor remained in the temporary assignment for 21 months before being returned to his home position.

The union argued that by keeping him beyond 12 months, the employer deemed him permanent.

The arbitrator dismissed the motion, finding that the settlement language did not create an automatic deeming provision and that whether the grievor met the job requirements remained a factual issue to be tried.

The union brought a motion arguing that the grievor's acquittal on criminal charges for assaulting an inmate was dispositive of his grievances regarding his dismissal and the employer's refusal to indemnify his legal fees.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the motion, finding that an acquittal in a criminal trial is not binding on civil or arbitration proceedings due to the different standards of proof and purposes of the proceedings.

The union grieved the employer's unilateral decision to restrict operational staff from starting work before 7:30 a.m., alleging it breached the collective agreement's provisions on start times and constituted bargaining in bad faith.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the bad faith bargaining allegation, finding it fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

However, the Board held that the employer breached the collective agreement by imposing a blanket restriction on start times without engaging in the required individual meetings to consider business needs and seniority.

The grievance was allowed in part, and the employer was directed to consider start time requests on an individual basis.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued a case management order consolidating multiple grievances filed by the union on behalf of the grievor up to April 22, 2015.

The Board directed the union to provide supplementary particulars and scheduled the next hearing date to address the employer's obligation to file reply particulars and other preliminary matters.

The union filed grievances alleging excessive discipline and a failure to provide a workplace free of discrimination and harassment.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to strike out aspects of the union's claims and limit evidence regarding prior incidents.

The Grievance Settlement Board ruled that evidence of matters already determined by the Board or settled would not be entertained to avoid re-litigation.

However, evidence regarding a 2010 incident was permitted as it fell within the generally accepted three-year rule for establishing a course of harassing or discriminatory conduct.

The employer brought a motion for further and better particulars regarding three grievances alleging harassment by coworkers and management.

The employer argued that two paragraphs in the union's particulars were too vague.

The Grievance Settlement Board agreed, finding that the paragraphs lacked the required degree of granularity.

The union was ordered to provide further and better particulars within 20 business days.

The arbitrator was seized with three grievances pursuant to the Mediation/Arbitration Procedure in the Collective Agreement.

Upon consideration, the arbitrator granted the grievances and remained seized of any implementation issues.

In a grievance arbitration, the Employer requested further particulars from the Union.

After hearing submissions, the Grievance Settlement Board ordered the Union to provide the further particulars requested by the Employer.

The union grieved the termination of the grievor's employment, which the employer declared abandoned under section 42 of the Public Service of Ontario Act, 2006.

The grievor had been off work due to illness and subsequently requested an unpaid leave of absence to care for his sick father.

The employer repeatedly requested supporting documentation, including medical information, which the grievor failed to provide.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the employer's requests for information were reasonable and that the grievor failed to comply.

The grievance was denied, and the declaration of abandonment was upheld.

The grievor, a visible minority, alleged she was subjected to racial discrimination, harassment, and assault by her coworkers.

She reported these incidents to her manager and director, but the employer failed to conduct a meaningful investigation or take reasonable steps to address the poisoned work environment.

As a result of the workplace conflict, the grievor developed major depressive disorder and required a medical leave of absence.

The Grievance Settlement Board allowed the grievance, finding that the employer was willfully blind to the serious problems in the office and breached its duty to provide a safe and healthy work environment free from discrimination.

The grievor, a correctional officer, refused a supervisor's order to return two inmates to their original unit to avoid triple bunking, claiming the order was unsafe and the supervisor was incompetent.

The grievor initiated a work refusal under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, which the Ministry of Labour determined did not meet the criteria for a work refusal.

The employer subsequently held a fact-finding meeting and issued a conciliatory letter closing the issue without imposing discipline.

The union grieved, alleging the employer's actions constituted a reprisal for the work refusal.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding the grievor's conduct was insubordinate and the employer's response did not breach the collective agreement.

The union filed a grievance alleging that the grievor, an employee of the Windsor Central Ambulance Communications Centre, was improperly scheduled for shifts, resulting in 160 hours of lost time.

Following an expedited hearing, the Grievance Settlement Board issued a ruling without reasons, ordering the employer to compensate the grievor for the 160 hours of lost time and to schedule her for shifts pursuant to standard procedures going forward.

The union requested an adjournment of the hearing because the grievor was on long-term income protection and his illness prevented him from assisting in the preparation of his case.

The employer opposed the request, citing significant delay and diminishing witness recall.

The Grievance Settlement Board granted a six-month adjournment to balance the prejudice to the parties and allow the grievor an opportunity to participate in the litigation.

The grievor, a part-time Child and Youth Counselor, suffered an off-duty ankle injury and returned to work on modified duties.

A dispute arose regarding his medical restrictions, specifically his physician's assertions that he could not work weekends or more than two consecutive shifts.

The employer relied on a Functional Abilities Evaluation that found no such restrictions and scheduled the grievor accordingly.

The grievor repeatedly refused to work his scheduled shifts, claiming they violated his doctor's orders.

The employer applied progressive discipline, culminating in the grievor's termination for insubordination.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievances, finding the employer reasonably relied on the FAE, the grievor failed to cooperate in the accommodation process, and his repeated refusal to work scheduled shifts constituted culpable insubordination justifying discharge.

The Employer applied to consolidate five grievances involving two correctional officers, Upson and Kirkwood, who were involved in a physical altercation at work.

Kirkwood grieved his discharge for the assault, while Upson filed four grievances relating to the assault, overtime, and other workplace issues.

The Union opposed consolidation.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that three of Upson's grievances lacked sufficient commonality of fact or law with the assault incident and ordered them scheduled separately.

However, the Board ordered that Kirkwood's discharge grievance and Upson's grievance directly relating to the assault be heard together, as they shared a central factual nexus, though they were not formally consolidated due to the grievors' opposing interests.

The grievor failed to attend a scheduled mediation and a subsequent arbitration hearing regarding a grievance alleging harassment and discrimination.

The Union requested an adjournment, citing the grievor's medical reasons, but failed to provide a required medical note by the deadline set by the Board.

The Employer sought dismissal of the grievance due to the delay and lack of diligence.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the grievor demonstrated a complete lack of respect for the proceedings and failed to justify his absences.

The grievor failed to attend a scheduled arbitration hearing, having previously failed to attend a mediation session.

The Union requested an adjournment, while the Employer sought dismissal of the grievance due to prejudice from delay.

The Vice-Chair held that the grievor had an onus to be attentive to the scheduling of his grievance.

The grievance was ordered to be administratively dismissed unless the Union could provide a good reason for the grievor's failure to attend by a specified date.

The Union brought an application requesting that the Employer be ordered to proceed first in a mediation-arbitration concerning a lay-off grievance and subsequent bumping grievances.

The Union alleged bad faith, claiming the grievor was targeted.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the application, holding that established jurisprudence requires the party making allegations of bad faith to proceed first so the responding party can adequately respond.