David Williamson

The union requested to consolidate a grievance dated November 9, 2021, with an earlier grievance filed by the same grievor on May 14, 2019.

The 2019 grievance alleged a toxic work environment, while the 2021 grievance focused on the employer's failure to accommodate the grievor's driving anxiety.

The employer opposed the consolidation.

The Grievance Settlement Board denied the request, finding that the grievances were separated by over two years, involved different issues, and pertained to different managers and accommodation specialists, meaning consolidation would not result in a more efficient use of resources.

The grievor failed to attend the scheduled hearing on April 6, 2018, citing a medical condition.

The Arbitrator ordered the Union to provide medical documentation from the grievor's treating health care professional confirming the medical condition, the inability to attend, and the anticipated date of return.

The hearing was adjourned sine die pending receipt of the documentation, with the Employer reserving the right to request dismissal or argue against remedy if the documentation is not provided.

The grievor, a correctional officer with 21 years of unblemished service, was discharged for using excessive force on two inmates and failing to accurately report the incident.

The grievor admitted to the misconduct prior to suspension and expressed genuine remorse.

The arbitrator found that the employment relationship was not irreparably damaged due to the grievor's long, discipline-free record, his early admission of fault, and the severe financial impact of the termination on his family.

The discharge was substituted with a lengthy suspension, and the employer was directed to reinstate the grievor to a substantially equivalent position that does not involve direct contact with inmates, pursuant to the restrictions in the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act.

The grievor, a surplus employee, filed a grievance alleging the employer improperly failed to assign her to the vacant position of Service Order Fulfillment Analyst (SOFA) via the Targeted Direct Assignment process under the collective agreement.

The employer determined she was not entry level qualified for the position.

The arbitrator found that the SOFA position is a highly technical role requiring expert knowledge of computers and active directories, which the grievor did not possess.

The grievance was denied as the grievor did not meet the entry level qualifications for the targeted direct assignment.