Daniel Harris

The union filed a policy grievance alleging that the employer was obligated under the collective agreement to pay the newly introduced Ontario Health Premium on behalf of bargaining unit members.

The union argued that the collective agreement's promise to provide OHIP coverage 'at no premium cost' required the employer to cover the new levy.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that while the Ontario Health Premium is materially similar to the former OHIP premium, the specific language of the collective agreement, which was amended following the introduction of the Employer Health Tax Act, limited the employer's payment obligation to the Employer Health Tax.

The employer brought an interim application in the discharge grievances of two correctional officers who were found guilty of being parties to an assault causing bodily harm against an inmate.

The employer sought an order acknowledging that the Board was bound by all factual findings made by the trial judge in the criminal proceedings, and an order requiring the union to disclose material it intended to rely upon for mitigation.

The Board dismissed the application, holding that in an adversarial proceeding, it is for the employer to decide how to prove the material facts it believes are required to discharge its onus, and the Board would not advise the employer on how to proceed at the outset of its case.

The grievor applied for a Photocopy/Mail Clerk position and scored the highest in the interview.

However, the employer disqualified her, concluding she must have had advance knowledge of the interview questions and preferred answers because her responses were concise and closely matched the preferred answers.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the employer's conclusion was arbitrary and unreasonable, as the grievor had extensive experience in the role and had diligently studied publicly available materials, including the Canada Customs website, which the employer had used to create the questions.

The grievance was allowed, and the employer was ordered to place the grievor in the position and make her whole.

The union filed three grievances on behalf of the grievor seeking remedies amounting to accommodation under the Human Rights Code.

Based on joint submissions, the Grievance Settlement Board ordered that the grievor be placed in a permanent full-time Warehouse Worker 3 position.

As an accommodation, the employer was ordered not to schedule the grievor on the afternoon shift during his probationary period, and the grievor was permitted to switch scheduled afternoon shifts with other workers for two years.

The employer brought a motion to strike out portions of the union's particulars alleging discrimination against the grievor, arguing that the allegations predated the grievor's 1996 reinstatement and were inherently prejudicial due to the passage of time.

The Grievance Settlement Board agreed, finding that the grievor's return to work in January 1996 provided a significant breaking point.

The Board ruled that evidence of events prior to January 15, 1996 was inadmissible, balancing probity and prejudice.

The grievor, a hot-line operator with 22 years of service, was discharged for conflict of interest and misuse of government property.

The employer discovered she was operating a retail store using the Ministry's corporate credit card to purchase inventory, accumulating nearly $13,000 in unpaid charges.

Investigations also revealed she used the Ministry's telephone system extensively for her business, worked at her store while on paid short-term sick leave, and used Ministry computers for business purposes.

The Grievance Settlement Board found the grievor blatantly misused employer resources to derive an advantage for her outside business, violating conflict of interest regulations.

The grievance was dismissed and the discharge upheld.

The Union requested a hearing, alleging the Employer breached a prior settlement agreement regarding the grievor's accommodated work assignment.

The Employer sought an adjournment of the scheduled hearing due to the unavailability of counsel and a key management advisor.

The Union opposed the adjournment because the grievor required clarification of his work assignment prior to an upcoming surgery.

The Vice-Chair granted the adjournment on the condition that the grievor be immediately assigned to the A + D shift schedule, subject to medical restrictions, pending a final determination.

The grievor, a Senior Field Auditor and Certified Management Accountant, filed a grievance claiming the Ministry was responsible for paying his professional dues to the Society of Management Accountants of Ontario.

The employer submitted that payment was not required by the collective agreement or its policy, as maintaining the credential was not necessary for the effective performance of his duties.

The union agreed with the employer's submissions.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding no dispute between the parties and therefore no jurisdiction.

The grievor alleged she was improperly placed in an OAG 3 position after being declared surplus from her OAG 6 position.

The employer conceded that its previous practice of withholding 'threatened positions' from the displacement process had been abandoned, and that the grievor ought to have displaced into an OAG 6 position with the Ontario Clean Water Agency.

The Grievance Settlement Board allowed the grievance, declaring the grievor was entitled to the OAG 6 position and ordering the employer to pay $2,267.23 in lost wages and benefits.

The grievor filed a grievance regarding his performance review (PMR).

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the grievance was untimely.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the grievor was aware of his complaints about the PMR in February 1999 and knew no later than April 29, 1999, that his complaints had been rejected by management.

Because the grievance was not filed until June 7, 1999, well past the mandatory time limits set out in the collective agreement, the preliminary objection was allowed and the grievance was dismissed.

The union requested to bifurcate the hearing of a job competition grievance to first determine whether the employer's failure to look beyond candidate interviews was a fatal procedural flaw.

The Grievance Settlement Board denied the request, finding that the evidence relating to procedural fairness was not easily separable from the rest of the job competition process.

The Board concluded that the balance of convenience favoured hearing all evidence on all issues in the normal course.