David R. Williamson

The employer brought a motion to dismiss several grievances, alleging the grievor abused the arbitration process through hearing delays, cancellations, and failing to attend a scheduled hearing on time.

The Grievance Settlement Board reviewed the history of the proceedings and found that the delays and cancellations were due to various administrative issues, illness, and changes in counsel, rather than the grievor's conduct.

Regarding the missed hearing, an agreed statement of facts confirmed the grievor did not receive notice of the hearing until after it had commenced.

The motion to dismiss for abuse of process was denied.

The Grievor, a registered nurse at a detention centre, was assaulted by an inmate while conducting an intake assessment alone, contrary to institutional policy requiring a correctional officer to be present.

The Union grieved that the Employer failed to ensure her health and safety by not preventing the assault, delaying her transport to the hospital, and allowing her to drive home alone afterwards.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that the assault resulted from the Grievor's own decision to proceed without a correctional officer, that the delay in hospital transport was due to her choice to wait for police, and that the Employer acted reasonably regarding her transportation home.

The employer requested an amendment to a previous procedural order regarding the location from which the grievor was required to attend virtual hearings.

The grievor had transferred to a new work location and could no longer access the previous location.

The union opposed the amendment, citing the grievor's desire to keep past issues out of her new workplace.

The arbitrator granted the employer's request and amended the order to require the grievor to attend future virtual hearings from a designated private space at her new work location.

The grievor filed three grievances alleging harassment and discrimination resulting in involuntary resignation.

After multiple hearing days, the proceedings were delayed for over three years while the grievor pursued unsuccessful duty of fair representation complaints at the OLRB.

When hearings resumed, the grievor failed to attend and subsequently refused to provide reasons for his absence or commit to participating in future hearings.

The employer brought a motion to dismiss the grievances.

The arbitrator granted the motion, finding the grievor's conduct disrespectful to the process and the union, and dismissed the grievances.

During the examination-in-chief of the grievor in a workplace harassment and discrimination arbitration, the grievor testified about three incidents not included in the union's statement of particulars.

The employer moved to strike this evidence.

The union argued the incidents were relevant to establishing the manager's animus toward the grievor.

The arbitrator dismissed the employer's motion, ruling that the union should be afforded the opportunity to adduce further evidence on these matters, with the employer given latitude to cross-examine.

The grievor failed to attend a scheduled continuation of his arbitration hearing regarding workplace harassment and involuntary resignation.

The employer indicated it might bring a motion to dismiss the grievances.

The arbitrator adjourned the hearing and directed the grievor to provide written reasons for his non-attendance and failure to provide notice, warning that failure to do so or failure to attend the next scheduled date would result in the dismissal of the grievances without further notice.

During a multi-day grievance arbitration held via videoconference, the grievor experienced repeated technical difficulties that prevented her from testifying.

The employer sought an order requiring the grievor to attend future hearing dates from a designated physical location with reliable internet.

The arbitrator granted the request, ordering the grievor to attend future scheduled hearing dates at one of two specified employer office locations where a private boardroom and internet connectivity would be provided.

The Employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the first of nine grievances alleging workplace harassment, bullying, and discrimination, arguing it was filed outside the collective agreement's time limits.

The Union argued the grievance was a continuing grievance and sought to adduce evidence of a pattern of harassment dating back to 2009.

The Arbitrator found the initial grievance was not a continuing grievance but a single act with continuing effects, and declined to extend the time limits under s. 48(16) of the Labour Relations Act due to substantial prejudice to the Employer.

The first grievance was dismissed, and the Union was precluded from adducing evidence prior to March 2016, striking paragraphs 2 to 26 of the Statement of Particulars.

The parties jointly requested amendments to an earlier decision dated April 15, 2021, regarding the disclosure and production of medical documents in a grievance arbitration.

The Arbitrator ordered the amendments, which updated the number of grievances and modified the conditions under which the Employer's counsel may share the grievor's medical documents with instructing clients, law students, disability accommodation specialists, and witnesses.

At a grievance arbitration hearing, the Employer raised a preliminary concern regarding the Grievor's fitness to participate and face cross-examination.

The Employer requested an order requiring the Union to provide medical assurance from the Grievor's treating practitioner that she was medically fit to proceed.

The Union opposed the request, noting the Grievor was aware of the process and willing to proceed.

The Arbitrator denied the Employer's request, finding insufficient medical grounds or circumstances to warrant such an order.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of an employee regarding the employer's refusal to reimburse meal expenses incurred while travelling for work.

The employer argued that the employee travelled as a regular part of his job and was therefore excluded from reimbursement under its policy directive.

The arbitrator held that the collective agreement prevailed over the employer's policy directive.

Because the employee met the criteria in the collective agreement for meal reimbursement while travelling on government business, and none of the exceptions applied, the grievance was allowed.

The union brought two preliminary motions in a grievance arbitration concerning allegations of workplace sexual harassment and discrimination.

First, the union sought to anonymize the grievor's name to protect their privacy given the sensitive personal and medical information involved.

Second, the union sought production of the personnel file of the employee accused of harassment.

The arbitrator granted the anonymization request, finding it an appropriate case to protect privacy.

The arbitrator also ordered the employer to produce specific categories of documents from the accused employee's personnel file, subject to redactions for irrelevant health information and the deemed undertaking rule.

The parties reached an agreement regarding the disclosure and production of documents in relation to eight grievances.

The Arbitrator issued a consent order setting out timelines for the union to provide particulars and for both parties to produce arguably relevant documents.

The order included specific conditions for the disclosure, handling, and eventual destruction of the grievor's medical records to maintain confidentiality.

The grievor, a newly hired correctional officer, was terminated after the employer discovered he had falsely stated on a pre-employment security screening declaration that he had not been charged with any criminal offences.

In fact, he was facing off-duty criminal charges related to a family law dispute.

The arbitrator found that while the grievor's dishonesty provided just cause for discipline, termination was not a proportional response given his discipline-free record, the lack of a nexus between the off-duty charges and his employment, and his immediate truthfulness when confronted.

The termination was rescinded and replaced with a 10-day unpaid suspension.

The Employer raised preliminary objections regarding the sufficiency of the Union's amended particulars, the timeliness of certain allegations, and requested medical production.

On consent, the Arbitrator ordered the Union to provide full particulars regarding allegations of a toxic workplace and systemic racism, struck paragraphs relating to a 2015 WDHP complaint, and ordered the disclosure of the grievor's medical files from treating physicians.

The employer sought disclosure of the grievor's medical records relating to facial hair and night-shift accommodations.

The arbitrator ordered the grievor to execute releases for clinical notes, reports, and correspondence from January 2018 to December 2020.

The disclosure was subject to conditions, including prior review by union counsel for redaction of irrelevant information and strict limits on the employer's distribution of the documents.

The grievor challenged the outcome of a job competition for a Senior Food Services Officer (Cook 3) position.

The employer relied exclusively on interview scores to select the successful candidate, failing to consider the grievor's years of actual experience performing the duties of the posted position.

The arbitrator found that this exclusive reliance on interview scores, without considering demonstrated ability, violated the collective agreement's requirement to give primary consideration to qualifications and ability.

The arbitrator ordered the competition to be re-run, noting that the interview format also disadvantaged the grievor as a non-native English speaker.

In a grievance arbitration concerning the grievor's termination, the employer requested disclosure of the grievor's medical records.

The union sought to limit production to arguably relevant records within a specific timeframe and requested conditions on their handling, as well as anonymization of the grievor's identity.

The arbitrator ordered the union to disclose arguably relevant medical documents pertaining to the grievor's mental condition for the 12 months prior to termination, subject to strict confidentiality conditions.

The parties agreed to anonymize the grievor's identity in the decision.

The union filed grievances alleging the employer failed to provide a harassment-free and safe workplace, seeking monetary damages for mental distress.

The employer brought a preliminary motion arguing the Grievance Settlement Board lacked jurisdiction to award damages for injuries compensable under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act (WSIA).

The arbitrator held that the Board lacks jurisdiction to award monetary damages for mental distress resulting from workplace harassment, as such claims fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the WSIA regime.

However, the Board retains jurisdiction to grant declaratory relief and other monetary remedies not compensable under the WSIA.

In the context of four grievances, the Union sought the production of arguably relevant documents, including occurrence reports, investigation notes, and the medical records of a specific individual.

The Arbitrator ordered the Employer to disclose the requested documents.

The production of the medical records was made subject to strict confidentiality conditions, including prohibitions on photocopying and requirements that the grievors only review the documents in the presence of legal counsel.