Gail Misra

The union filed a grievance on behalf of a fixed-term Correctional Officer, claiming her Continuous Service Date (CSD) was incorrectly calculated because she was not credited with 40-hour weeks during a period of sick leave.

The arbitrator reviewed the calculation of hours for fixed-term employees on sick leave, noting that the formula requires averaging the hours worked in the 13 weeks prior to the leave.

Finding that the grievor did not average 40 hours per week in that period, the arbitrator upheld the grievance in part and directed the employer to adjust the grievor's CSD to November 3, 2008.

The grievor, a classified Cook 2, applied for and accepted a fixed term Correctional Officer position.

The employer required her to choose between the two positions, leading her to resign from her Cook 2 role.

She subsequently filed a grievance claiming she was forced to resign under duress and was treated differently than male colleagues by not being allowed to carry her seniority for rollover purposes.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that under the collective agreement, the grievor's resignation terminated her continuous service, and there was no right to hold two positions or transfer seniority in these circumstances.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of an employee who transferred from an OAG 6 position at a closing facility to an OAG 4 position at a new facility, alleging a violation of salary protection provisions in the collective agreement.

The arbitrator found that the employee accepted the transfer knowing she would be moving to a lower classification to avoid being placed on the surplus list.

The grievance was dismissed as the employee received the full benefit of salary protection in accordance with the collective agreement and the cross-ministry transfer agreement.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of an employee at the Maplehurst Correctional Complex, alleging that the employer improperly calculated her Continuous Service Date (CSD).

The parties had previously established a transition process to address restructuring issues.

Upon reviewing the grievor's hours and hearing submissions, the arbitrator agreed with the parties that the CSD should be amended.

The grievance was upheld, and the employer was directed to amend the grievor's CSD to September 6, 2010.

The grievor, a fixed term Correctional Officer, requested a transfer to another facility on compassionate grounds before completing the required one year of service.

He subsequently resigned to take a position with another Ministry, and later obtained a new fixed term contract at his desired facility.

The union grieved, arguing his seniority should carry over.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that under Article 18.4 of the collective agreement, the grievor's resignation caused a break in service, terminating his continuous service up to that point.

In an interim decision regarding multiple grievances, the Employer requested authorization for its advisor and instructor to review the grievor's redacted medical file.

The Union objected on the basis of medical privacy.

The Arbitrator granted the Employer's request, finding that the Employer's counsel could not properly prepare for the litigation without seeking guidance from her advisor and instructor regarding the medical facts.

The Arbitrator ordered the production of the medical records pursuant to s. 48(12)(b) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, subject to strict confidentiality conditions, limiting use solely to the hearing, and requiring the return or destruction of the documents upon completion of the case.

The union filed a grievance alleging that the employer violated the collective agreement when an elevator failed on a statutory holiday and no electricians were called in.

The union asserted that a manager improperly performed bargaining unit work by tampering with the elevator controls.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding no evidence that the manager entered the elevator control room or performed bargaining unit work.

Furthermore, the arbitrator noted that electricians are not the designated first trade to be called for elevator issues, and the employer properly exercised its discretion to call an external elevator repair company.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of an administrative assistant claiming she should have been assigned overtime instead of a less senior employee.

The employer had assigned the overtime to another administrative assistant to complete a time-sensitive project she was already working on, which was not part of the grievor's regular assignment.

The arbitrator found that the Programs Department Overtime Protocol did not apply to the staff in question and that the employer reasonably exercised its management rights to meet operational requirements.

The grievance was denied.

The grievor, an electrician, filed a grievance alleging he should have been called in to shut off a fire pump on two dates, rather than plumbers or mechanics.

The matter proceeded by mediation-arbitration.

The Arbitrator found that at the relevant time, the Employer's established call-in procedure for fire pumps listed plumbers first and mechanics second, but did not include electricians.

Although the parties subsequently agreed to add electricians to the call-in order, the Employer acted in accordance with the procedure in place at the time.

The grievance was denied.

The union grieved a two-day unpaid suspension imposed on a correctional officer for insubordination and unprofessional conduct towards a sergeant.

The grievor admitted to using profanity and initially refusing a direction to write a report.

The arbitrator found the grievor's behaviour was aggressive, inappropriate, and insubordinate.

However, considering the grievor had no prior disciplinary record, the arbitrator reduced the penalty to a one-day unpaid suspension and ordered the employer to compensate the grievor for the other day.

The employer brought a motion to strike portions of the grievor's declaration on the basis of res judicata and issue estoppel, arguing the impugned paragraphs related to matters already decided in a prior 2013 grievance.

The union argued the paragraphs provided necessary historical context for the current human rights and accommodation grievances.

The arbitrator partially granted the motion, striking paragraphs that sought to re-litigate the prior grievance while permitting others to remain solely for narrative purposes and historical context, without being admitted for the truth of their contents.

Following a prior award, the parties were unable to agree on the quantum of damages payable to the Grievor for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

The Arbitrator directed the parties to provide written submissions on the issue and set a schedule for those submissions.

The Union filed a grievance alleging the Employer modified a non-bargaining unit position such that it should be included in the bargaining unit, and failed to notify the Union of the changes.

The Employer raised a preliminary objection that the grievance was untimely and barred by the doctrine of laches, arguing the Union knew of a compensation review three years prior.

The Arbitrator dismissed the preliminary objection, finding the Union was not informed of substantive job duty changes and therefore could not have acquiesced.

Alternatively, the Arbitrator held that the failure to remit union dues for an allegedly improperly excluded position constitutes a continuing grievance, making it timely.

The parties appeared before the Grievance Settlement Board for a scheduled hearing, but the employer's counsel was unable to attend due to illness.

To prevent further delays, the arbitrator issued a preliminary decision directing the employer to advise of any preliminary motions and to produce all arguably relevant documents by specified dates.

The union was also directed to follow up on a request for clinical notes from one of the grievor's medical service providers.

The matter was adjourned to the next scheduled hearing date.

In a grievance arbitration involving seventeen grievances filed by the Union, the Employer requested full particulars and documents prior to the hearing.

The parties agreed on a timetable for the exchange of information.

The Arbitrator issued an interim decision directing the Union to provide particulars and documents by August 31, 2018, and the Employer to respond by November 30, 2018.

The Arbitrator declined the Employer's request to preemptively dismiss the grievances if the Union missed the deadline, noting it was premature, but warned that failure to comply could lead to dismissal.

The grievor, a caseworker, requested three days of paid Special and Compassionate Leave (SCL) under the collective agreement to deal with personal issues related to the anniversary of her brother-in-law's death.

The employer requested additional information to support the request, which the grievor refused to provide.

The employer denied the SCL request but offered vacation days instead.

The grievor later provided a doctor's note stating she needed time off to support her spouse's medical treatment, but again refused to explain the connection to her original request.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that the employer's decision-making process was reasonable and not arbitrary, as the onus is on the employee to provide sufficient factual support for an SCL request.

The Union advised the Grievance Settlement Board that the Employer had not complied with quantifiable orders made in a previous decision.

The Arbitrator directed the Employer to pay the Grievor all monies due pursuant to the previous orders within two weeks.

In preparation for a grievance arbitration hearing scheduled for July 2018, the Arbitrator ordered the Union to produce all arguably relevant medical documents regarding the grievor's return to work following a 2012 WSIB injury.

The Union was directed to provide the documents by May 11, 2018, failing which the grievances could be dismissed.

A confidentiality order was also imposed limiting disclosure of the medical information.

The Union applied for interim relief seeking an order that the Employer accommodate the grievor in a non-driving position pending the outcome of his grievance.

The grievor, a coach technician, had his driver's license suspended following an impaired driving charge, but asserted he suffered from alcoholism requiring accommodation.

The Grievance Settlement Board denied the application, finding that granting the requested interim relief would effectively dispose of the main accommodation issue in the grievance without a full hearing on the merits, which exceeds the arbitrator's procedural powers under the Labour Relations Act.

The Employer brought a motion to consolidate three disputes involving two different complainants (Chiba and Argyropoulos) to be heard together.

The disputes involved allegations of workplace harassment and subsequent discipline.

The Association opposed the motion, arguing the adjudicator lacked jurisdiction to consolidate matters already assigned to and commenced before a different Vice-Chair.

The Grievance Settlement Board denied the motion, finding it lacked jurisdiction to take matters from another seized adjudicator without the parties' consent.

Furthermore, even if jurisdiction existed, the Board would decline to consolidate the matters due to limited factual overlap and potential prejudice to the complainant.