Diane Gee

The Employer brought a motion to strike portions of the Union's particulars in a grievance arbitration concerning a five-day suspension.

The Employer argued the particulars advanced allegations of general harassment and discrimination that fell outside the scope of the grievance.

The Arbitrator held that the grievance was confined to the allegation that the five-day suspension lacked just cause and constituted harassment or discrimination.

However, the Arbitrator declined to strike all the disputed particulars, finding that evidence of the grievor's stress and overwork could be relevant as mitigating circumstances, provided the events pre-dated the suspension and were not the subject of ungrieved discipline or concurrent proceedings in other forums.

The union filed a grievance alleging the grievor did not receive the correct amount of severance pay upon retirement.

The grievor failed to attend the scheduled hearing.

The arbitrator directed the grievor to provide reasons for his non-attendance by a specified date, failing which the matter would be dismissed.

The grievor failed to provide reasons, and the grievance was dismissed.

The grievor failed to attend his scheduled grievance arbitration hearing regarding severance pay, citing business interests.

The arbitrator adjourned the hearing and directed the grievor to provide detailed reasons for his non-attendance by a specified date, failing which the grievance would be dismissed.

If reasons are provided, the employer may bring a motion to dismiss or proceed to mediation/arbitration.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued procedural directions ahead of a scheduled hearing.

The Employer was directed to provide the Union with production of all documents arguably relevant to a grievance involving a job posting for a Client Accommodation Support Services Advisor position.

The Union was directed to provide the Employer with particulars regarding the same grievance.

In a grievance alleging a failure to accommodate, the Union sought conditions on the disclosure of the grievor's medical documents and an order for particulars from the Employer.

The Employer sought production of a confidential Memorandum of Settlement regarding the grievor's LTIP benefits.

The Arbitrator ordered that the medical documents be disclosed only to Employer counsel and one instructing advisor, with further disclosure requiring consent or a Board order.

The Arbitrator also ordered the Employer to provide particulars of the accommodation steps taken, noting the shifting onus in accommodation cases.

Finally, the Union was ordered to produce the Memorandum of Settlement due to its arguable relevance.

The union filed a group grievance alleging an abuse of management rights regarding the caseloads of Victim Witness Service Workers at the Brampton office compared to other offices, and the employer's refusal to provide workload statistics.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that even if the allegations were true, they would not amount to a violation of the collective agreement, as the employer retains the right to determine work allocation and is not obligated to equalize work or provide statistics.

The union filed a policy grievance alleging the employer violated the collective agreement by issuing black shirts and ties to Transit Security Officers instead of the required grey shirts and navy blue ties.

The arbitrator declared the issuance of black shirts a violation of the collective agreement and ordered the employer to provide replacement grey shirts at the next uniform issue.

The arbitrator remained seized of the issue regarding the black ties due to the employer's allegation of delay.

The Employer brought a motion to strike several paragraphs from the Union's will-say statement in a grievance arbitration concerning harassment and failure to accommodate.

The impugned paragraphs contained allegations that had been the subject of earlier grievances dismissed by another arbitrator.

The Union argued the earlier decision was not on the merits and that the new grievances included a failure to accommodate claim.

The Arbitrator held that the prior decision was a final determination on the merits regarding those specific harassment allegations.

Applying the doctrine of res judicata, the Arbitrator granted the Employer's motion and struck the paragraphs from the will-say statement to prevent relitigation of previously decided matters.

The union filed a grievance alleging the grievor was improperly discharged.

At the scheduled arbitration hearing, the grievor failed to attend.

The arbitrator adjourned the hearing and directed the grievor to provide reasons for her non-attendance by a specified date, failing which the matter could be dismissed.

The Union sought production of a confidential workplace restoration report and related documents, and requested that the grievor be permitted to adduce her evidence in chief by way of a will-say statement.

The Employer opposed both requests, arguing the report was confidential and not arguably relevant, and that oral testimony was required for credibility assessment.

The Arbitrator ordered production of the report with strict confidentiality restrictions, finding it arguably relevant for cross-examination or corroboration.

The Arbitrator also permitted the use of a will-say statement to improve efficiency, granting the same option to the Employer.

The Employer requested an adjournment of a scheduled hearing date because its counsel was inadvertently double-booked.

The Union opposed the request, arguing that the matter had already been delayed and that the Employer could assign a different lawyer.

The Arbitrator granted the adjournment, noting that the underlying grievance regarding temporary higher pay was not time-sensitive, the scheduling error was inadvertent, and the assigned counsel had already invested time in the file and settlement discussions.

The hearing was rescheduled with a delay of only six days.

The employer brought a motion to dismiss seven individual grievances alleging health and safety violations at the Maplehurst Correctional Complex on the basis that they failed to make out a prima facie case or constituted an improper expansion of the grievance.

The arbitrator denied the motion with respect to the Access Grievance, finding that the union pleaded sufficient facts to establish that the lack of access to standing orders created a safety risk.

The arbitrator granted the motion and dismissed the Staff Shortages Grievances, the Proximity Grievance, and the Training Grievance, finding that they relied on unsupported conclusions rather than facts, and in some cases, improperly expanded the scope of the original grievances.

In a grievance arbitration concerning discipline and alleged reprisal, the Union requested the production of videos and discipline letters relating to the incident.

The Employer contested the order due to confidentiality concerns.

The parties reached an agreement, and the Arbitrator ordered the production of the materials subject to strict confidentiality restrictions.

The Arbitrator also issued procedural directions for the management of the hearing, including the exchange of statements of facts and limitations on witness testimony, to ensure the matter proceeds expeditiously.

The Union filed a group grievance alleging the Employer violated the Collective Agreement and the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act by inadvertently posting employees' personal information on a public drive.

The arbitrator found the breach was inadvertent and the information was posted for a short period.

Relying on similar precedent, the arbitrator ordered the Employer to pay $2,000 to the Union for equal distribution among the affected grievors.

The union filed a grievance alleging that the grievor was improperly laid off or terminated from the position of Maintenance Mechanic and not recalled in accordance with the collective agreement.

The matter proceeded to expedited mediation/arbitration under the collective agreement.

The arbitrator considered the parties' submissions on the undisputed facts and the collective agreement language.

The grievance was denied without precedent or prejudice, in accordance with the parties' policy for expedited hearings.

The Arbitrator issued a procedural direction following a teleconference.

The upcoming hearing date will be used to establish undisputed material facts and mark agreed documents as exhibits, after which the matter will be adjourned to dates yet to be set.

The union filed a grievance alleging a violation of articles 2.1 and 3.3 of the Collective Agreement and the Workplace Harassment and Discrimination Prevention Policy.

The parties referred the grievance to mediation/arbitration under Article 22.16 of the collective agreement and requested a decision without precedent or prejudice, and without written reasons.

The arbitrator denied the grievance.

During a mediation session, the Grievance Settlement Board directed the union to request a medical opinion from the grievor's doctor regarding her fitness to return to work and participate in the arbitration process.

The union was further directed to provide particulars of the grievance to the employer within 90 days of obtaining a medical note confirming her ability to participate.

The employer and the union filed applications challenging a Review Officer Order regarding the calculation of the job rate for a male comparator job class under the Pay Equity Act.

The parties disagreed on how to convert the annual salary and vacation benefit of the male comparator (Computer Technician) to an hourly rate for comparison with the female job class (ESL Instructor).

The Tribunal rejected both the union's position (which assumed all comparators received maximum vacation) and the employer's position (which ignored the value of the vacation benefit).

The Tribunal remitted the matter back to the parties to calculate the total hourly compensation by properly valuing the vacation benefit based on years of service.