Diane L. Gee

The parties engaged in an expedited arbitration process regarding implementation issues arising from a 2012 memorandum of settlement.

The employer sought repayment of amounts it alleged the grievor owed due to these implementation issues, as set out in a July 2024 letter.

The arbitrator determined that the employer could not pursue the alleged overpayment.

The Union filed a grievance seeking damages for scheduled wage increases, statutory holidays, and personal loss/mental health caused by a suspension pending investigation.

The Arbitrator dismissed the grievance without detailed written reasons, finding that the damages sought would not be awarded regardless of the merits.

The claim for wage increases was barred by res judicata due to a prior decision determining the grievor's anniversary date.

The claim for statutory holidays was speculative, and damages for mental health were not available as the suspension was inherent to the grievor's position under the Public Service of Ontario Act.

The union filed a grievance alleging the employer violated the collective agreement by requiring Transmission Maintenance Employees to work five 8-hour days instead of four 10-hour days.

The union argued the employer was estopped from changing the schedule and that the change was a reprisal.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding no jurisdiction to order the employer to enter into a compressed work week arrangement absent a collective agreement violation.

The estoppel argument failed because the union signed the renewal memorandum of agreement after being notified of the schedule change, and the reprisal argument lacked particulars.

The Association filed a grievance alleging the Employer violated the collective agreement by denying the grievor's request for an alternative work arrangement to work from home four days a week.

The manager denied the request based on Secretary of Cabinet memos requiring employees to be in the office three days a week, interpreting the memos as prohibiting work from home arrangements of more than two days absent exceptional circumstances.

The Grievance Settlement Board found the dispute was not moot despite the grievor later receiving a three-day arrangement.

On the merits, the Board held the manager fettered her discretion and narrowed the scope of the collective agreement by applying a blanket rule rather than considering the individual request and operational viability in good faith.

The grievance was allowed and a violation of the collective agreement was declared.

Following a finding that the Employer failed to comply with the procedural requirements of a Memorandum of Settlement during an investigation into alleged use of force, the Union sought damages for loss of earnings, general damages, and violation damages.

The Arbitrator held that the Board lacked jurisdiction to award loss of earnings or general damages because, even if the proper procedure had been followed, the grievors would have been suspended and suffered the same losses.

The Arbitrator declined to award violation damages, noting the breach was inadvertent, there was no bad faith, and there was no need for deterrence.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of the grievor regarding an unsuccessful application for a permanent full-time position.

The parties reached a settlement agreement in principle, which included a wage increase.

The grievor subsequently negotiated a higher wage rate directly with the employer but then refused to sign the modified Minutes of Settlement.

The employer sought to enforce the agreement with the higher wage rate.

The arbitrator found that a binding agreement was reached and directed its implementation, including the employer's subsequent commitment to the further wage increase.

In a grievance arbitration concerning a 10-day suspension and a dismissal, the employer sought to bring a preliminary motion arguing that the union's allegations of reprisal under the Occupational Health and Safety Act and discrimination under the Human Rights Code were outside the scope of the grievance.

The union brought a motion arguing the scope issue should not be bifurcated from the hearing on the merits.

The arbitrator declined to bifurcate the proceedings, finding that the evidence relevant to the scope issue was intertwined with the evidence on the merits, and that fairness and practicalities weighed against dealing with the scope issue as a preliminary matter.

The Union sought production of an Investigation Report and related materials in a grievance arbitration.

On consent of the parties, the Arbitrator ordered the Employer to produce the requested documents to the Union.

The production was made subject to strict confidentiality conditions, including restrictions on copying, distribution, and use of the documents solely for the purpose of the arbitration.

The grievor failed to attend the scheduled arbitration hearing and advised the union of her absence the night before.

The employer requested that the grievor be ordered to provide reasons for her non-attendance.

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

The hearing was adjourned sine die.

The union filed a grievance alleging a violation of the management rights clause and seeking an independent evaluation of amalgamated job duties with the expectation of a higher classification.

The employer brought a motion to dismiss the grievance on the basis that it was a classification grievance for which no remedy is permitted under section 51 of the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act.

The arbitrator agreed, finding that the grievance was a classification grievance and that the Board had no jurisdiction to provide a remedy.

The employer's motion was granted and the grievance was dismissed.

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

The arbitrator issued an order requiring the grievor to provide reasons for her absence by a specified date, failing which the grievance would be dismissed.

The grievor did not provide any reasons by the deadline, and the grievance was consequently dismissed.

The grievor failed to attend the hearing on March 31, 2023.

The Arbitrator previously ordered the grievor to provide an explanation and supporting documentation for the non-attendance by April 17, 2023, failing which the grievances would be dismissed.

The grievor failed to provide any explanation.

Consequently, the three grievances were dismissed.

The grievor failed to attend a scheduled video conference hearing despite repeated attempts by the union to contact her.

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

The Union filed three grievances on behalf of the grievor.

Following a prior order requiring the grievor to produce documents and attend the hearing, the grievor failed to attend the scheduled hearing or contact the Union.

The Employer requested that the grievances be dismissed for abuse of process.

The Arbitrator ordered the grievor to provide an explanation and supporting documentation for his non-attendance by a specified date, failing which the grievances would be dismissed.

The employer sought an order for the production of documents and particulars after the union failed to provide them by an agreed-upon date.

The union explained that the grievor had not responded to its attempts to contact him.

The arbitrator ordered the union to produce the requested documents and particulars, and ordered the grievor to contact the union immediately and attend the next scheduled hearing date.

The Union filed grievances on behalf of 30 Correctional Officers who were suspended with pay pending investigation into allegations of excessive use of force and failure to report.

The Union argued the Employer failed to comply with a 2012 Memorandum of Settlement, which required the Superintendent to consider whether each employee could remain in the workplace in some capacity, the anticipated length of the investigation, and the seriousness of the allegations.

The Arbitrator found the Employer failed to establish that the Superintendent considered these factors for each individual employee prior to deciding to suspend them.

The matter of remedy was remitted to the parties.

The Union requested pre-hearing disclosure of documents relating to the Employer's allegations of misconduct by the grievor.

The Employer objected on the basis of privacy and confidentiality.

The Arbitrator ordered the Employer to disclose the Investigation Report and non-privileged materials, subject to strict confidentiality conditions, including restrictions on copying and sharing the documents.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of the grievor.

The grievor failed to attend the initial hearing and a subsequent hearing.

The arbitrator previously ordered that if the grievor failed to attend and failed to provide reasons, the grievance would be dismissed.

The grievor failed to attend the rescheduled hearing and failed to provide reasons as directed.

The employer brought a motion to dismiss the grievance.

The arbitrator granted the motion and dismissed the grievance due to the grievor's repeated non-attendance and failure to comply with the arbitrator's directions.

The grievor failed to attend the scheduled grievance arbitration hearing.

The employer moved to dismiss the grievance.

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

The employer was given a deadline to respond to any reasons provided.

At the first scheduled date of a grievance arbitration, the employer brought a motion to commence the hearing immediately.

The union opposed the motion, relying on the established practice at the Grievance Settlement Board to use the first date for mediation, case management, and preliminary issues before adjourning.

The arbitrator dismissed the employer's motion, finding that while the employer's desire for efficiency was justifiable, the established practice ought to prevail because the employer had not clearly put the union on notice in advance of its intention to move to commence the hearing.