Deborah J.D. Leighton

The union filed a grievance on behalf of a fixed-term employee seeking conversion to a full-time position in the regular service pursuant to the collective agreement.

The employer did not dispute that the grievor met the requirements.

Following an expedited mediation/arbitration hearing, the arbitrator granted the grievance in part, ordering the employer to review the grievor's work history and hours to determine her entitlement to conversion and, if eligible, to place her in a full-time regular position.

A correctional officer grieved that the employer wrongly denied him the right to work on three dates in 2008.

The parties referred the grievance to mediation/arbitration under the collective agreement and requested a decision without written reasons.

The arbitrator granted the grievance and ordered the employer to pay the grievor for 36 hours at his standard rate of pay.

The grievor, an unclassified correctional officer, grieved that she was denied the opportunity to apply for a posted competition and alleged the employer deliberately delayed her transfer.

The parties referred the grievance to mediation/arbitration.

The arbitrator found no violation of the collective agreement and dismissed the grievance without written reasons, as requested by the parties.

The grievor, who was unrepresented, requested an adjournment of his scheduled grievance hearings due to illness.

The employer opposed the adjournment and moved to dismiss the grievances, arguing the grievor's sick note was inadequate.

The Vice-Chair suspended the decision on the employer's motion to dismiss and granted the grievor an opportunity to provide a more detailed medical opinion explaining his inability to participate, and to retain counsel.

The union filed 68 grievances on behalf of the grievor regarding a job competition for a temporary assignment as a probation and parole officer.

The union alleged the employer violated the collective agreement because the grievor's qualifications were relatively equal to the successful candidate, and that the employer discriminated and acted in bad faith during the assessment.

The arbitrator found no violation of the collective agreement, no evidence of discrimination or bad faith, and dismissed the grievances.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to exclude evidence of events from 2005 that were the subject of previous grievances settled by a Memorandum of Settlement in 2006.

The union sought to adduce the evidence to show a pattern of harassment and provide context for current grievances alleging breaches of the settlement and reprisal.

The Grievance Settlement Board granted the employer's motion, holding that the principle of the sanctity of settlements prevents the admission of evidence underlying settled grievances absent special circumstances, which were not present here.

The grievors, who are managers, filed a grievance alleging discrimination and unfair treatment because they did not receive the same salary increases as the bargaining unit employees they supervise, despite performing the same duties in addition to their managerial responsibilities.

The employer brought a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, arguing it was essentially a classification or salary compression grievance.

The Public Service Grievance Board granted the motion and dismissed the grievance, holding that it lacks jurisdiction to review classification decisions or remedy salary compression absent a breach of a specific policy, term of employment, or evidence of bad faith.

The grievor alleged that the employer breached minutes of settlement by returning him to his home position after a six-month developmental opportunity as a Labour Relations Specialist.

The grievor argued that he should not have been returned to his home position without proof of poor performance.

The Public Service Grievance Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the clear language of the settlement agreement only entitled the grievor to a six-month developmental opportunity, after which employees normally return to their home positions.

The employer had fulfilled its obligations under the agreement.

The grievor suffered a workplace injury and received WSIB benefits.

During his absence, his position was privatized.

He elected to take a surplus package rather than transfer to the new service provider.

When he was deemed fit to return to work, his surplus election took effect and he received his surplus benefits.

He grieved, alleging discrimination and failure to accommodate.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the employer properly followed the collective agreement and that there was no evidence of discrimination or failure to accommodate.

In an interim decision on an evidentiary issue, the union sought to introduce evidence of settlement discussions between the grievor and the employer in its reply evidence.

The employer objected, arguing the discussions were privileged, irrelevant, and beyond the proper scope of reply.

The Grievance Settlement Board upheld the employer's objection, finding that the evidence of settlement discussions was not relevant to the issues in dispute, as the mere fact that settlement discussions occurred does not support an inference of an admission of liability.

The grievor filed a grievance alleging breaches of working conditions and terms of employment, including being forced to resign from the Ontario Public Service in 2000 to take a position at a divested facility.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the grievance as untimely and outside the board's jurisdiction.

The Public Service Grievance Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the seven-year delay in filing was excessive and not justified by the grievor's alleged fear of reprisal or lack of information.

The board also held that it had no jurisdiction over complaints arising during the grievor's subsequent employment at the divested facility.

The employer sought particulars from the union regarding the alleged damages or losses claimed by over 200 grievors.

The grievances alleged that the addition of a 'z' to their email accounts and/or being added to the Tracking Protocol breached the collective agreement.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the union to provide the requested particulars by April 15, 2008.

The grievors, employed as Labour Relations Officers, alleged systemic discrimination after being unsuccessful in a job competition for a Labour Relations Specialist position.

The employer brought three preliminary motions to limit the scope of evidence at the hearing.

The Grievance Board granted the employer's first motion, excluding evidence related to a previously settled grievance of another employee.

The Board also granted the second motion, limiting the admissible evidence to events occurring within three years prior to the filing of the grievances.

However, the Board denied the employer's third motion to strike certain particulars for lacking detail, finding that the particulars provided were sufficient for the employer to know the case it had to meet.

During a grievance arbitration regarding workplace harassment based on sexual orientation, the employer indicated it would seek damages against the union if found liable, alleging a union president was the main harasser.

The union brought a motion arguing the board lacked jurisdiction to hear what amounted to a counterclaim without a formal grievance, and a second motion seeking an order preventing adverse findings against the union.

The Grievance Settlement Board granted the first motion, finding it had no jurisdiction to hear an entirely different matter not properly grieved by the employer.

The board dismissed the second motion, holding that refusing to make adverse findings before hearing all evidence would be a denial of fairness.

The parties referred a grievance alleging a violation of the overtime protocol to mediation-arbitration.

At the parties' request, the Vice-Chair issued a without prejudice decision with no reasons.

The grievance was granted, and the employer was ordered to pay the grievor ten hours at the overtime rate.

The union filed a grievance alleging that the employer violated the overtime protocol.

The parties referred the matter to mediation-arbitration and requested a without prejudice decision with no reasons.

The arbitrator granted the grievance and ordered the employer to pay the grievor ten hours at the overtime rate.

The union filed a grievance alleging that management failed to follow the overtime protocol under Article 2 of the collective agreement.

The parties referred the matter to mediation/arbitration and requested a without prejudice decision with no reasons.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the grievance after reviewing the submissions and jurisprudence.

The union sought to adduce evidence of a picket line incident that had been the subject of a prior memorandum of settlement, arguing it was necessary to provide context for the grievor's current harassment allegations.

The employer brought a motion to exclude this evidence, relying on the finality of the settlement.

The Grievance Settlement Board granted the employer's motion, holding that admitting evidence of settled matters would undermine the sanctity of settlements and labour relations.

Evidence of events occurring after the date of the original grievances, however, may be admissible.

The grievor alleged she was improperly denied overtime.

The parties referred the grievance to mediation/arbitration and requested a decision without written reasons.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance.

The grievor alleged she was improperly denied overtime.

The parties referred the grievance to mediation/arbitration under the collective agreement and requested a decision without written reasons.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance.