Daniel Harris

The Union raised a preliminary objection seeking to exclude a forensic handwriting analyst's report, arguing that the Employer breached the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act by providing the grievor's handwriting samples from business documents to the analyst.

The Employer used the samples to identify the grievor as the author of an offensive comment on a sympathy card.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the objection, finding that the labour relations exceptions in s. 65(6) of the Act applied, as the documents were used in relation to anticipated proceedings and employment-related matters in which the Employer had an interest.

The Union grieved the Employer's decision to cancel a job competition for a temporary position in Barrie after the grievor had applied.

The Employer cancelled the posting because the incumbent entered into a job trade with an employee in Newmarket, effectively moving the vacancy to Newmarket.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that the Employer had sound and practical reasons to cancel the posting, as the job trade was a legitimate exercise of employee rights under the collective agreement that eliminated the vacancy in Barrie.

In a grievance arbitration regarding a job competition, the Grievance Settlement Board ordered the Employer to provide full disclosure of the successful applicants' resumes, applications, and answer sheets with marking/scores.

The Union was ordered to provide full particulars of the facts and allegations it will rely on at arbitration upon receipt of the disclosure.

The Employer was also directed to advise the Union of any preliminary objections at least two weeks prior to the hearing.

Following a mediation/arbitration, the Grievance Settlement Board ordered the employer to place the grievor in the corporate health reassignment process in accordance with the collective agreement.

The employer was also ordered to conduct a search for a temporary assignment that meets the grievor's medical restrictions.

If a placement is not found by the specified date, the grievor is to be placed on a leave of absence with full pay until a placement is found or the specified end date.

The parties sought direction on who should be given notice of the arbitration proceedings.

The grievance concerned a job posting that was discontinued after two employees arranged a job swap.

The grievor's claim was limited to travel costs, as the posted job period had expired.

The Vice-Chair held that there was no requirement to give notice to the other applicants or the employees engaged in the job swap, as there was no incumbent with an interest to protect and no possible displacement of other employees.

The WSIB disciplined the grievor, a union president, for inappropriate comments made to a union steward while they were off-duty and engaged in union business.

The union grieved the discipline and brought a preliminary motion arguing the employer had no authority to discipline for off-duty conduct.

The Grievance Settlement Board also considered a motion for production of documents related to a human rights complaint.

The Board ordered the production of the human rights pleadings.

On the main preliminary issue, the Board held that the conduct occurred entirely within the union committee and had no nexus to the employer's legitimate interests.

The employer therefore had no authority to discipline the grievor, and the discipline was set aside.

The union filed grievances alleging that a letter dismissing a workplace harassment complaint contained defamatory statements about the grievor and was distributed too widely.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the distribution of the letter to relevant management and human resources personnel was reasonable.

The Board held that the communication was protected by qualified privilege, as the author and recipients had a legitimate interest in the matter, and the union failed to establish malice to defeat the privilege.

The grievances were denied.

The union grieved that the grievor was not paid the correct premium for working on a statutory holiday.

The union argued that working on a statutory holiday constituted overtime, and because the grievor was forced to work, she was entitled to a higher premium rate under the collective agreement.

The employer maintained that statutory holiday work and overtime were governed by separate provisions, and the statutory holiday provision did not include an enhanced premium for forced work.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that the collective agreement treated overtime and statutory holiday pay as separate and distinct, and the hours worked on the statutory holiday did not attract the forced overtime premium.

The union filed a grievance alleging that the employer violated the collective agreement by denying the grievor a promotion to a permanent customer service representative position.

The employer screened the grievor out of the job competition because she had received a five-day suspension 18 months prior for consuming alcohol during her shift.

The union argued this amounted to double punishment.

The arbitrator held that the employer was entitled to consider the grievor's disciplinary record in assessing her suitability for the position, particularly given the employer's social responsibility mandate regarding alcohol.

Finding the employer's decision reasonable, the grievance was dismissed.

The union sought a further adjournment of a mediation-arbitration after the grievor failed to attend the scheduled hearing, despite receiving notice.

The employer opposed the adjournment.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the matter to be scheduled on a peremptory basis for a future date.

The union filed a policy grievance claiming the employer was liable to pay for Functional Abilities Assessment Forms (FAAF) required for employees returning to work following a medical absence.

The collective agreement required the employer to pay $10.00 for medical certificates verifying absences of less than five days, and required employees to provide satisfactory medical certificates at their own expense for longer absences.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that a FAAF is an addendum to a medical certificate to facilitate modified duties, not a medical examination required by the employer, and therefore the employer was not obligated to cover its cost.

The grievor, a Probation and Parole Officer, claimed mileage, meal, and travel time expenses for the period she spent backfilling a temporary vacancy at a different office.

The grievor had requested not to return to her home office for personal reasons and accepted the temporary assignment offered by the employer.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the employer did not require the grievor to use her automobile for business purposes, nor did it authorize the travel time.

The travel was considered normal commuting to and from her workplace, and the meal periods did not fall under the collective agreement's travel exemptions.

The Union filed a policy grievance regarding the placement of Workwell Evaluators on a new salary grid following a job reclassification.

The position was moved up one salary grade, from an eight-step grid to a four-step grid.

The Employer placed employees on the new grid at the first step that provided a wage increase, arguing that the collective agreement's requirement to adjust salaries to the 'same step' could not be applied because the new grid had fewer steps.

The Grievance Settlement Board allowed the grievance, finding that Salary Rule 6 requires the Employer to use each employee's job start date and apply the step time frames of the new salary grade to determine their placement, ensuring equal treatment and reflecting the value of the reclassified job.

The union filed a job-posting grievance after the grievor was denied an interview for a permanent bilingual Claims Investigator position.

The employer claimed she did not meet the minimum requirements for investigation skills.

The grievor argued she had been treated as a preliminary candidate in a prior temporary posting and relied on the hiring manager's advice to her detriment.

The arbitrator found the manager's assessment process lacked rigour and preferred the grievor's evidence.

The arbitrator concluded the grievor was a preliminary candidate and ordered that she be assessed for the permanent position.

The employer brought a pre-hearing application to dismiss two grievances filed by the union on behalf of an employee.

The grievances alleged that a manager's letter, which responded to a workplace harassment complaint and detailed past unsustained allegations against the grievor, was defamatory and improperly distributed.

The employer argued the Board lacked jurisdiction over defamation claims and that no prima facie breach of the collective agreement was established.

Applying the Supreme Court's test in Weber, the Vice-Chair found that the essential character of the dispute arose from the collective agreement, as the letter was written by a manager communicating a workplace problem and implicated provisions regarding discipline, discrimination, and health and safety.

The employer's preliminary objection was dismissed.

The parties sought preliminary direction on the evidentiary effect of the grievor's criminal acquittal for aggravated assault on the basis of self-defence.

The grievor had been discharged following a workplace altercation where he inflicted a knife wound on a coworker.

The Union argued it would be an abuse of process to relitigate the criminal court's findings that the grievor acted in lawful self-defence.

The Employer argued the lower civil standard allowed it to prove just cause for discharge.

The Vice-Chair ruled that the parties cannot introduce evidence that contradicts the essential findings of fact made by the criminal court, specifically that the coworker unlawfully assaulted the grievor and the grievor reasonably feared serious injury and believed he could not otherwise save himself.

The union grieved the discharge of a Claims Adjudicator who was dismissed for allegedly conspiring with a previous claimant and another employee to defraud the WSIB of approximately $55,000.

The employer relied heavily on a tape-recorded statement from a co-conspirator implicating the grievor.

The union challenged the admissibility of the statement, arguing it was obtained in violation of the co-conspirator's Charter and union representation rights.

The arbitrator admitted the statement, finding no Charter or representation rights were breached during the investigation interview, and concluded there was clear and cogent evidence that the grievor participated in the fraud.

The grievance was denied.

In an interim order regarding multiple consolidated grievances, the Grievance Settlement Board noted that eight of eleven grievances were finalized by settlement or withdrawal.

For the remaining three grievances, the Board ordered the union to provide particulars by May 24, 2006.

A request to consolidate two additional grievances was scheduled for a teleconference.

The Grievance Settlement Board convened to address a backlog of grievances filed by court services employees.

Following previous decisions and procedural agreements, the Board heard submissions and made determinations on several matters.

Some grievances were referred to a subcommittee, some were consolidated, one was withdrawn, and several were dismissed where there was no dispute between the parties.

The remaining matters were scheduled to be heard on a peremptory basis.

The union filed grievances claiming damages because correctional officers at a youth centre were not issued uniforms between 1999 and 2002.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the grievances, arguing they did not disclose a breach of the collective agreement and only alleged a breach of the employer's policy and management rights.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the essential character of the dispute concerned the provision of uniforms, a subject matter not explicitly or implicitly covered by the collective agreement.

Consequently, the Board lacked jurisdiction to consider the grievances, and the employer's motion to dismiss was granted.