Diane Gee

The union filed a grievance alleging the grievor was bullied and harassed by a co-worker, and that the employer failed to properly investigate the complaints and punitively transferred the grievor.

The arbitrator found that the interactions between the grievor and her co-worker constituted a mutual personality conflict rather than workplace harassment.

The arbitrator also found the transfer was for legitimate operational reasons.

However, the employer violated the Occupational Health and Safety Act and the collective agreement by failing to investigate one of the complaints and failing to provide the grievor with written results of the investigations into the other complaints.

The grievor was awarded $4,500 in general damages for these procedural failures.

The Union filed a grievance on behalf of several individuals.

Two of the grievors failed to attend the scheduled video hearing despite being aware of the time and date.

The Arbitrator ordered the absent grievors to provide reasons for their non-attendance to Union counsel by a specified date.

If no explanation is provided, the grievance will be deemed dismissed as it pertains to them.

If reasons are provided, the Employer will review them and advise whether it is satisfied or seeks dismissal.

The grievor failed to attend a scheduled videoconference hearing for a grievance alleging termination without just cause.

The Union requested an adjournment sine die or an opportunity for the grievor to explain her absence, noting potential disability issues, while the Employer sought dismissal.

The Arbitrator declined to adjourn sine die or dismiss immediately, instead ordering the grievor to provide a documented explanation for her absence by a specified date, failing which the grievance would be dismissed.

The union filed grievances challenging the employer's process for posting and filling a Product Consultant position, alleging the successful candidate did not meet the minimum qualifications.

The employer conceded that the process violated the collective agreement and did not resist the usual remedy of rerunning the competition.

However, at the grievors' request, the arbitrator issued a declaration that the employer violated the collective agreement but declined to order the competition to be rerun.

The union grieved a seven-day suspension imposed on a court clerk for leaving his courtroom assignment without authorization and engaging in conduct contrary to the Respectful Workplace Policy.

The grievor left the courtroom to attend to a personal matter after falsely telling the judge he would be replaced, and subsequently confronted his supervisor in an aggressive and disrespectful manner.

The arbitrator found that the employer established just cause for discipline, as the grievor's actions constituted insubordination and violated the workplace policy.

Given the grievor's failure to take responsibility and his untruthfulness, the arbitrator declined to mitigate the penalty and dismissed the grievance.

The grievor, a casual Customer Service Representative with 20 years of service at the LCBO, was terminated for violating the Shop Theft Policy and Workplace Violence Prevention Policy.

The grievor engaged in a physical altercation with a suspected shoplifter, during which he held a box cutter near the suspect's neck.

Following the incident, the grievor bragged to co-workers, misled his manager, and failed to show genuine remorse or accept responsibility for his actions.

The Arbitrator found that the grievor's conduct was deliberate, unprovoked, and created a serious safety hazard.

Given the grievor's lack of accountability and the employer's statutory duty to maintain a safe workplace, the Arbitrator concluded the employment relationship was irreparable and dismissed the grievance.

The grievor failed to attend a scheduled video conference hearing for a grievance arbitration.

The arbitrator ordered the grievor to provide reasons for his absence to union counsel by a specified date, failing which the grievance would be deemed dismissed.

The employer was given the opportunity to review the reasons and determine whether to agree to relist the matter or seek its dismissal.

The union filed a grievance seeking a firm commitment from the employer to negotiate a new compressed work week arrangement.

At the hearing, the union attempted to argue that the employer's failure to schedule employees according to regular hours resulted in unpaid overtime.

The arbitrator held that the issue of overtime was an impermissible expansion of the scope of the grievance, as it was not mentioned in the original grievance document.

Furthermore, the arbitrator ruled that the Grievance Settlement Board lacks jurisdiction to direct the employer to negotiate a compressed work week arrangement, as this falls within management rights.

The portion of the grievance relating to the compressed work week was dismissed.

The Association sought production of Excel spreadsheets and related emails regarding the screening of a job competition.

The Arbitrator ordered the Employer to produce the requested documents in their original format, subject to an implied undertaking that they only be used for the present grievance and be destroyed at the conclusion of the matter.

The Union filed a grievance alleging the Employer violated Minutes of Settlement (MOS) when it failed to contact the grievor, a Class III operator, for an acting Class IV Overall Responsibility Operator assignment.

The grievor, who had since retired, sought $40,000 in damages for approximately $160 in lost wages.

The arbitrator determined a full hearing was disproportionate to the interests at stake and decided the matter on written submissions.

The arbitrator held that the MOS provision stating the grievor 'may be contacted' was permissive, granting the Employer the right but not the obligation to offer the assignment to the grievor.

The grievance was dismissed.

The employer brought a motion to dismiss a grievance alleging harassment and bullying on the basis that it was not filed in a timely manner.

The grievance was filed 14 months after the deadline provided in the collective agreement.

The union requested an extension of time limits under section 48(16) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The arbitrator declined to exercise discretion to extend the time limits, noting the significant delay, the fact that the delay occurred at the initial filing stage, and the lack of a consistent explanation from the grievor.

The grievance was dismissed.

The Association filed a grievance on behalf of an employee who was offered a promotion with an 11% salary increase due to an administrative error.

The employee accepted the offer, but the employer realized the mistake the next day and issued a new offer with a 3% increase, which the employee signed.

The Association argued the first offer was a binding contract.

The Arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that in a unionized environment, the employer is entitled to correct an honest administrative error where there is no detrimental reliance, distinguishing the situation from common law employment contracts.

The union grieved that 'survey stops' performed by transport enforcement officers violated the Highway Traffic Act and section 9 of the Charter.

In a prior decision, the Grievance Settlement Board held it would only have jurisdiction if the employer's directions clearly and unambiguously required functions resulting in such violations.

At the hearing, the union was unable to provide evidence or prior decisions establishing that survey stops constitute a clear violation.

Consequently, the employer's motion to dismiss the 'survey stops' portion of the grievance for lack of jurisdiction was granted.

The grievor failed to attend the scheduled hearing on March 19, 2021.

By a previous order, she was required to provide reasons for her absence by April 2, 2021, failing which the matter would be deemed dismissed.

As no reasons were provided, the grievance was dismissed.

The grievor failed to attend a scheduled video hearing for her grievance.

The arbitrator ordered the grievor to provide reasons for her absence to Union counsel by a specified date, failing which the grievance would be deemed dismissed.

If reasons are provided, the Employer will determine whether it is satisfied with them or seeks dismissal.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the Ontario Public Service Employees Union to provide the Employer with full particulars of all alleged facts relied upon in support of the grievance by February 26, 2021.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of an employee who was disciplined for an incident that occurred in a courtroom.

The union sought production of the court recording from the date and time of the incident, arguing it was relevant to the dispute over what transpired.

The arbitrator ordered the employer to produce the requested court recording to the union.

The employer brought a motion to enforce an Interim Agreement and dismiss the grievance.

The Interim Agreement provided that if the ultimate outcome was a change in the grievor's reporting relationship such that she no longer reported to a specific manager, the grievance would be withdrawn.

Following a department reorganization, the grievor's reporting relationship was permanently changed.

The union argued the change was due to reorganization rather than accommodation and alleged bad faith.

The arbitrator found that the ultimate outcome required by the Interim Agreement had been met, regardless of the reason for the change, and deemed the grievance withdrawn.

The Union brought a motion to consolidate ten grievances filed by the grievor between 2017 and 2019.

The Employer agreed to consolidate the 2017 and 2019 grievances but objected to including the 2018 grievance, arguing it involved a discrete issue concerning a leave request made to a different manager.

The Arbitrator granted the motion to consolidate all ten grievances, finding that the 2018 grievance alleged discriminatory treatment, which was also raised in the 2019 grievances.

The Arbitrator concluded that hearing the 2018 grievance separately would prejudice the grievor, be inefficient, and risk inconsistent decisions.

The employer brought a motion to dismiss the grievance as inarbitrable because it was referred to arbitration nine months after the deadline set out in the collective agreement.

The union requested an extension of time under section 48(16) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, citing a clerical error as the cause of the delay.

The arbitrator declined to extend the timelines, finding that the lengthy delay could reasonably have led the employer to assume the grievance was abandoned, and dismissed the grievance.