David R. Williamson

The Union sought an order for the production of documents related to three grievances concerning the discipline of the grievor.

Following a teleconference, the Arbitrator ordered the Employer to disclose and produce any and all arguably relevant documents pertaining to the discipline by September 18, 2018.

The employer brought a motion to dismiss a termination grievance after the grievor failed to attend two scheduled hearings and failed to provide medical documentation as ordered by the Board.

The union opposed the motion and ultimately sought to proceed with the grievance in the grievor's absence.

The arbitrator denied the employer's motion to dismiss, finding that the union has carriage of the grievance and is entitled to proceed without the grievor present, thereby allowing the matter to be heard on its merits without further delay.

The grievor was terminated after a lengthy medical absence and failure to provide updated medical information.

She failed to attend scheduled arbitration hearings, citing medical reasons.

The arbitrator previously ordered her to provide medical documentation explaining her absence.

When she failed to do so by the deadline, the employer sought to dismiss the grievance.

The arbitrator granted one further extension of time for the grievor to provide the required medical documentation, noting the termination context and the grievor's medical issues.

The grievor, a former Correctional Officer, was reinstated to employment following a previous arbitration decision that substituted his discharge with a suspension.

The employer placed him in an Electronic Supervision Officer (ESO) position.

The union grieved, arguing the ESO position was not 'substantially equivalent' to his former role because it offered significantly less opportunity for overtime pay.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that the two positions were substantially equivalent in skill, responsibility, and base pay.

The arbitrator held that the quantum of overtime previously earned could not be considered in the equivalency assessment, as overtime is a management right and not an employee entitlement.

The union requested an adjournment on the first day of a termination grievance hearing because the grievor failed to attend, citing recent medical treatment.

The employer objected and sought dismissal of the grievance, arguing the grievor failed to provide advance notice or medical documentation.

The arbitrator granted the adjournment without conditions, noting the serious nature of a termination grievance and that the grievor had contacted the union the previous evening regarding her medical situation.

The grievor was terminated from her fixed-term contract as a Correctional Officer for exceeding the ten permitted absences outlined in a prior Memorandum of Settlement.

The union grieved the termination, arguing that ten of her fourteen absences were protected personal emergency leave days under section 50 of the Employment Standards Act, 2000, primarily related to caring for her son's severe migraines.

The arbitrator held that the parties could not contract out of the minimum standards of the Employment Standards Act.

Because ten of the absences were statutorily protected, they could not be counted toward the threshold for termination under the settlement.

The grievance was allowed and the grievor was reinstated to complete her contract.

The grievor's position was declared surplus, and she sought to exercise her displacement rights under the collective agreement to bump into an Assessment Officer position.

The employer denied the displacement, arguing she was not qualified to perform the core duties of the role, specifically the independent adjudication of complex surgical claims.

The Grievance Settlement Board applied the established test requiring a surplus employee to demonstrate the present ability to perform all major components of the job at a minimum level of competence without a training period.

The Board found that while the grievor had extensive experience as a Claims Assessor, the Assessment Officer role required specialized skills and months of on-the-job training to adjudicate complex claims independently.

As the grievor could not perform this core function without training, the grievance was dismissed.

The parties reached an impasse regarding the implementation of Minutes of Settlement, specifically the selection of a mutually agreeable reclining chair to accommodate the grievor's medical condition.

Following a conference call, the Vice-Chair ordered the employer to provide the specific Reclina-Pedic chair that had been approved by the grievor's family physician.

A hearing was scheduled for a grievance disputing the employer's process for granting an unpaid leave of absence.

The grievor failed to attend the hearing.

The employer requested that the grievance be dismissed.

The arbitrator declined to dismiss the grievance immediately without notice, and ordered the grievor to provide sufficient reasons for his non-attendance within two weeks, failing which the grievance would be dismissed.

The grievor, a 65-year-old male Court Clerk and Registrar, filed a grievance alleging discrimination on the basis of age and gender after not being scheduled for assignments in Family Court.

The employer maintained that assignments were based on operational needs, skills, and abilities, and that the grievor lacked the required skills and had refused further training.

The Grievance Settlement Board found no objective evidence to support the grievor's subjective belief of discrimination.

The evidence showed that male employees were not assigned fewer hours overall and that age was not a factor in scheduling.

The grievance was dismissed.

The Grievance Settlement Board heard representations from the union and the employer regarding proceeding with a scheduled hearing.

The Board ordered the hearing scheduled for June 3, 2015, to be adjourned to October 19, 2015.

The union requested an adjournment of an upcoming arbitration hearing because the grievor needed to travel to be with an ill relative.

The employer opposed the request, noting the hearing date was set with the grievor's input and no particulars were provided.

The Vice-Chair directed the grievor to provide specific details regarding the ill relative, the nature of the illness, and her travel plans before ruling on the adjournment request.

The grievor, a Customer Care Representative with Service Ontario, was suspended for twenty days without pay following an incident of inappropriate call handling with a fragile caller.

The union grieved the quantum of discipline, arguing that the grievor's nineteen years of clean service should mitigate the penalty.

The arbitrator found that the grievor's conduct was serious and that she failed to show immediate remorse or report the incident.

The arbitrator concluded that the twenty-day suspension fell within the reasonable range of discipline and dismissed the grievance.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued a procedural order establishing a timetable for the delivery of written particulars, document disclosure, and the identification of preliminary issues in relation to the grievor's grievances.

The parties agreed to consolidate nine grievances before the Grievance Settlement Board.

The Board issued a procedural order establishing a timetable for the union to deliver written particulars of its allegations of fact and for the employer to provide notice of any preliminary objections.

The union requested an order directing the employer to fully implement the terms of a Memorandum of Settlement resolving a grievance.

Following a conference call, the Grievance Settlement Board ordered the Ministry to fully implement the settlement within 30 days, including providing the grievor with a new keyboard tray of her choosing.

The union raised a preliminary motion seeking to open up a 2011 Memorandum of Settlement that resolved two prior grievances filed by the grievor.

The union argued the employer acted in bad faith by deliberately withholding relevant emails prior to the settlement, which amounted to fraud.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the grievor had full knowledge of the facts pertaining to the grievances prior to signing the settlement, as he had written or seen all the emails in question.

The Board concluded the grievor was not misled or deceived, and absent compelling reasons to open up the settlement, the employer's motion to exclude the evidence was granted.

The grievor, a regular full-time employee at a Tim Hortons operated by the Niagara Parks Commission, had her position declared surplus due to an economic downturn.

She exercised her bumping rights to take a seasonal position.

The Union grieved, arguing it was unjust to replace a full-time position with seasonal hours while the operation remained open year-round.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding the Employer acted in good faith for sound business reasons and complied with the specific layoff and bumping provisions of the collective agreement.

The Union filed a grievance alleging the Employer breached Article 9 of the Collective Agreement and the Health and Safety Contractor Policy when concrete grinding resulted in dust and particulates entering work areas.

The Employer acknowledged it did not take sufficient precautions.

The Grievance Settlement Board declared the Employer breached Article 9 and directed the parties to consult on implementing the policy's procedures.