Daniel Harris

The union filed an individual grievance alleging that the employer's new rule requiring operational staff to commence work no earlier than 7:30 a.m. discriminated against the grievor on the basis of her knee disability.

The grievor sought accommodation to start work at 7:00 a.m. to avoid heavier traffic and secure free on-street parking closer to the workplace.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that the additional strain on the grievor's knee resulted from her personal choice not to pay for underground parking and her election to participate in a flex schedule that extended her workday.

The employer was not responsible for traffic volume or the consequences of the grievor's parking preferences, and thus no duty to accommodate arose.

The union filed an individual grievance alleging that the employer's new rule requiring operational staff to start work no earlier than 7:30 a.m. discriminated against the grievor on the basis of disability.

The grievor, who suffered from depression and had a long commute, requested an accommodation to start at 7:00 a.m.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that the grievor's difficulties stemmed from her personal choices regarding her residence and flex-time schedule, and that there was no discriminatory effect.

The union filed a grievance alleging that the employer's new rule requiring operational staff to commence work no earlier than 7:30 a.m. discriminated against the grievor on the basis of family status.

The grievor, who previously started at 7:00 a.m., argued the change interfered with her ability to transport her special needs children to school.

The arbitrator applied the test for family status discrimination, requiring a serious interference with a substantial parental obligation.

The arbitrator found that the grievor and her husband were able to adjust their schedules to accommodate the half-hour change, and therefore no prima facie case of discrimination was established.

The grievance was dismissed.

The union grieved the employer's decision to impose a general rule that operational staff must commence work no earlier than 7:30 a.m., alleging it discriminated against the grievor on the basis of family status.

The grievor, who had worked from 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. for 20 years, was the primary caregiver for her 91-year-old father and her husband.

The arbitrator applied the test for family status discrimination, requiring a serious interference with a substantial family obligation.

The arbitrator found that while an earlier start time would ease the grievor's schedule, the employer's rule did not amount to a serious interference with a substantial family obligation, and thus no duty to accommodate arose.

The grievance was dismissed.

The union grieved the employer's decision to impose a general rule that operational staff must commence work no earlier than 7:30 a.m., alleging it discriminated against the grievor on the basis of family status.

The grievor, who previously started work at 6:50 a.m., claimed the new schedule interfered with her ability to care for her 14-year-old son, who has ADHD and requires supervision after school.

The arbitrator applied the test for family status discrimination, which requires a serious interference with a substantial parental obligation.

The grievance was dismissed because the grievor had not explored or attempted to arrange any form of after-school supervision, failing to establish a serious interference with her family responsibilities.

The union filed a grievance alleging the grievor was subjected to racial discrimination by co-workers and that management failed to take action.

After the union closed its case, the employer brought a motion for non-suit.

The Grievance Settlement Board applied the standard for non-suit motions, which requires determining whether the union adduced sufficient evidence to support its claim if its witnesses are believed.

The Board found the union's evidence was sufficient to require an answer from the employer and dismissed the non-suit motion.

The union brought a motion for a non-suit regarding a discharge grievance.

The grievor had been progressively disciplined and discharged for failing to adhere to an accommodated work schedule.

The employer had closed its case.

The Grievance Settlement Board applied the test for a non-suit motion, determining whether the employer had adduced sufficient evidence to prove its case on a balance of probabilities if its witnesses were believed.

The Board found that the employer's evidence was sufficient to meet this standard and dismissed the union's non-suit motion.

The Union filed policy grievances alleging the Employer violated the collective agreement by unilaterally deciding to no longer agree to requests for compensating time off (CTO) in lieu of overtime pay for correctional officers.

The Union argued this undermined local bargaining, breached local agreements, and had a discriminatory effect on employees with family responsibilities.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievances, finding that the collective agreement required mutual agreement for CTO, and the Employer was entitled to withhold its consent for legitimate business reasons, namely reducing overtime costs.

The Board found no prima facie discrimination on the basis of family status, as employees had not requested formal accommodation.

The grievances were allowed only to the extent that the Employer breached notice provisions in any local agreements.

The Union alleged the Employer breached the Human Rights Code by failing to accommodate the grievor's family status during a mandatory Staff Learning Day.

The grievor had an ongoing accommodation for her work hours, but the Employer temporarily changed the hours for the event.

At the close of the Union's case, the Employer brought a motion for non-suit.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the grievor failed to clearly communicate her need for accommodation to her manager, relying instead on general emails sent in her capacity as a union steward.

As clear communication of the request is an essential element of a failure to accommodate claim, the Union failed to make out a prima facie case.

The grievance was dismissed.

The union brought a grievance seeking indemnification of the grievor's civil and criminal legal expenses arising from an incident on September 21, 2010, pursuant to article COR14 of the collective agreement.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the employer to reimburse the grievor for his legal costs upon the provision of receipts.

The order was made without precedential value.

The union requested disclosure of various documents related to a job competition for an Employment Standards Officer position, alleging the grievor was improperly denied an interview and screened out due to age.

The employer agreed to provide some documents but resisted others.

The arbitrator ruled that documents relating to the competition after the interview screening process were not arguably relevant to the issue of whether the grievor was improperly denied an interview.

The request for the ages of all applicants was denied as there was no evidence the employer had this information.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued a procedural decision establishing a case management process for a policy grievance and 147 individual grievances concerning the implementation of flex-time language in the collective agreement.

The parties agreed that the Vice-Chair would take jurisdiction over the individual grievances, which would be heard at the grievors' work locations following a specific expedited process involving will-say statements.

The policy grievance will be heard in parallel proceedings.

In a grievance arbitration alleging racial discrimination and a poisoned work environment, the Employer brought motions regarding evidentiary matters.

The Employer objected to the Union's proposed evidence from a co-worker intended to show the manager's propensity to ignore discrimination complaints.

The Employer also sought disclosure of the grievor's psychiatric records and police records.

The Grievance Settlement Board ruled the co-worker's evidence inadmissible as improper similar fact evidence.

The Board ordered disclosure of the psychiatric records, subject to strict confidentiality conditions, because the grievor had put her mental health at issue by claiming damages for pain and suffering.

Disclosure of the police records was granted on consent.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the consolidation of three job competition grievances filed by the union.

The Board further ordered the employer to make disclosure in the usual form for job competition grievances, and directed that the union's particulars be provided through the grievor's viva voce evidence, with the employer afforded an adjournment if requested.

The Union grieved the Employer's decision to pass over the grievor for a promotion to a full-time warehouseperson position.

The Employer determined the grievor was not qualified due to his extensive absenteeism, applying a standard of fewer than 15 days absent per year over the preceding three years.

The Union argued attendance was not an appropriate qualification and that the grievor's absences were related to personal stress.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that regular attendance was a reasonable qualification for a full-time position and that the Employer's standard was reasonably applied.

The union grieved an alleged overpayment made by the employer to the grievor during periods of short-term disability.

The employer claimed it erroneously continued her full salary.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the employer to provide particulars of the alleged overpayment, a detailed accounting, and relevant employment records.

The Board further ordered the employer not to withhold any monies from the grievor in respect of the alleged overpayment until the amount is agreed upon or determined by the Board.

The Union filed group grievances alleging that the scheduling of court reporters for weekend and statutory holiday bail hearings at the Old City Hall courthouse was inequitable and violated the collective agreement's provisions on management rights, discrimination, and health and safety.

The Employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the grievances, arguing there was no prima facie case and noting the absence of medical evidence.

The Grievance Settlement Board denied the motion, holding that the Union's allegations of fact must be taken as true at this stage and that dismissing the grievances without hearing the grievors' evidence would violate natural justice.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued a production order directing a doctor to produce clinical notes and records pertaining to the grievor's assessment and treatment following a motor vehicle accident.

The records are to be provided to union counsel, who will then provide arguably relevant copies to employer counsel, subject to strict confidentiality and use limitations.

The grievor failed to attend the scheduled grievance arbitration hearing on November 4, 2010, after previously failing to attend a hearing on May 6, 2010.

Due to the grievor's absence, the Union was unable to call evidence.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, subject to the grievor providing a good and sufficient explanation for his absence by November 12, 2010.

The Association grieved the Employer's failure to roll the grievor into a permanent Business Analyst position under article 18.8.1(e) of the collective agreement.

The grievor had been in a temporary assignment for over 24 months.

The Employer argued there was no continuing need for the work due to a reorganization and funding issues.

The arbitrator found that as of the effective date of the new collective agreement language, there was a continuing need for the work for greater than an additional 12 months.

The Employer was ordered to assign the grievor to a permanent position and make her whole.