Gail Misra

The Union grieved the termination of a Transit Safety Officer and brought a preliminary motion arguing the dismissal was void ab initio because the Employer relied on expired discipline.

The collective agreement contained a sunset clause requiring the removal of disciplinary records and letters of counsel after specified periods.

The decision-maker admitted to considering past customer complaints and an expired letter of counsel when deciding to terminate the Grievor for a use of force incident.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that the sunset clause was a mandatory substantive right and that the Employer's reliance on stale records violated the collective agreement.

The discharge was declared void ab initio, and the Grievor was reinstated with full compensation.

The Association grieved the termination of the Complainant's employment at the Office of the Independent Police Review Director (OIPRD).

Based on the submissions of the parties, the Grievance Settlement Board ordered that the Complainant be reinstated to employment effective November 14, 2014.

The Board further ordered the OIPRD to redact the Complainant's name to reflect 'CSP' in a specific decision posted on its website.

The grievor, a Correctional Officer, filed two grievances: one alleging harassment, discrimination, and reprisal for a previous human rights complaint, and another challenging a ten-day suspension for re-tweeting an inappropriate image on his personal Twitter account.

The Grievance Settlement Board upheld the suspension grievance, ordering the ten-day suspension removed from the grievor's record and that he be made whole, noting the lack of evidence that the tweet harmed the Employer's reputation.

The harassment and reprisal grievance was dismissed, as the Board found the Employer's scrutiny of the grievor's public social media account did not constitute harassment or a reprisal.

The union grieved the termination of a correctional officer who was dismissed for allegedly using excessive force against an inmate and failing to file complete and accurate reports.

The incident involved the officer pushing an inmate against a wall with his stomach, after which the inmate spat in the officer's face.

The employer alleged the officer then slapped and attempted to punch the inmate.

The arbitrator found that while the officer used excessive force by pushing the inmate and was misleading in his subsequent reports, the evidence did not support the allegation that he slapped or punched the inmate.

Given the officer's 12-year unblemished record, the termination was substituted with a 20-day unpaid suspension.

The Association filed a grievance alleging the Employer violated the collective agreement by incorrectly applying the date of ratification, rather than the job evaluation implementation date, to the retroactive reclassification of certain positions.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the Memorandum of Settlement and the Letter of Understanding expressly stated the reclassifications were effective on the date of ratification.

The Board declined to infer a monetary benefit of retroactivity to the earlier implementation date absent clear language.

The grievor, a Provincial Prosecutor, filed three grievances alleging the Employer breached the collective agreement and the Travel, Meal and Hospitality Expenses Directive by denying her meal claims while travelling.

The parties referred the grievances to mediation/arbitration and requested a decision without precedent or prejudice, and without written reasons.

The Vice-Chair directed that the meal claims be remitted back to the Employer for consideration in accordance with the collective agreement and the Directive.

The Union filed a group grievance on behalf of seven female correctional officers alleging workplace harassment, bullying, and gender discrimination by the Superintendent.

The Employer brought preliminary motions arguing that some allegations were untimely, some had been previously settled, and others failed to make out a prima facie case.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the Union's preliminary motion for production of investigation reports.

The Board then struck the pleadings for five of the seven grievors, finding they either failed to make out a prima facie case, were untimely, or relied on previously settled grievances.

The grievance was permitted to proceed for the remaining two grievors, subject to the striking of certain pleadings related to settled matters.

The grievor arrived at work following a severe ice storm to find the courthouse closed due to a power outage.

After waiting at a nearby restaurant, the employer directed the staff to report to an alternate courthouse downtown.

The grievor declined to go, citing health and safety concerns regarding travel and parking, and subsequently requested special and compassionate leave for the day.

The employer denied the request.

The Grievance Settlement Board, issuing a decision without precedent or prejudice as requested by the parties, found no violation of the collective agreement and dismissed the grievance.

The grievor, a Team Leader at a Small Claims Court, was denied special and compassionate leave for two days following a severe ice storm.

On the first day, she reported to work but found the building closed due to a power outage; she refused to report to an alternate location citing safety concerns.

On the second day, she remained home to care for her children while her husband sought a power source.

The Grievance Settlement Board found no violation of the collective agreement, noting the employer's exercise of discretion in assessing compassionate leave requests, and dismissed the grievance.

The grievor, a Client Services Representative, sought special and compassionate leave after her workplace was closed due to a power outage following a severe ice storm.

The employer directed staff to an alternate courthouse, but the grievor refused to go, citing health and safety concerns regarding travel, and went home instead.

The employer denied her request for compassionate leave for the missed time.

The Grievance Settlement Board found no violation of the collective agreement, noting the employer's exercise of management rights and discretion in assessing the leave request, and dismissed the grievance.

The grievor, a Financial Bookkeeper, attended her workplace on December 23 and 24, 2013, following a severe ice storm, but found the building closed due to a power outage.

After waiting for instructions and receiving none, she went home on both days.

The employer denied her request for special and compassionate leave.

The Grievance Settlement Board granted the grievance, ordering the employer to reimburse the grievor for her loss of pay or benefits for those two days.

The grievor filed four grievances alleging various breaches of the collective agreement, the Occupational Health & Safety Act, and the Workplace Harassment and Discrimination Policy, including allegations of religious discrimination and constructive dismissal.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the grievances on the basis that the particulars provided did not disclose a prima facie case.

The Grievance Settlement Board upheld the employer's motion, finding that even if the facts asserted were accepted as true and provable, they were not capable of establishing the elements to substantiate the alleged violations.

The grievances were dismissed.

The Union filed a group grievance alleging the Employer breached the collective agreement by failing to adequately train staff on a new Attendance Support and Management Program.

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

The arbitrator found no breach of the collective agreement and denied the grievance.

The Union brought a motion to consolidate two grievances filed on behalf of the grievor.

The first grievance challenged a 20-day disciplinary suspension for allegedly throwing a wet floor sign at an inmate, while the second alleged a privacy breach after the employer publicized the discipline on a shared computer drive.

The Union argued both actions were motivated by anti-union animus.

The Grievance Settlement Board granted the motion to consolidate, finding that the grievances shared common questions of law and fact, arose out of the same occurrence, and that hearing them together would be a more efficient use of resources without causing prejudice to the employer.

The Vice-Chair of the Ontario Labour Relations Board reviewed the submission of the responding party employer and determined that the remaining issue should be decided by another panel of the Board.

The Vice-Chair unseized herself and referred the matter to the Registrar.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board issued a procedural direction regarding the validity of a voluntary recognition agreement signed by CUPE and the employer.

Following a previous decision, the Board directed that the remaining issue be dealt with by way of written submissions and set a schedule for the parties to file their materials.

The Vice-Chair of the Ontario Labour Relations Board unseized herself from the case due to her resignation from the Board and return to legal practice.

As only preliminary matters had been dealt with, there was no prejudice to the parties, and the evidentiary portion of the case could proceed before another panel.

The applicant sought a review of an Employment Standards Officer's decision denying her claim that she was terminated because of her pregnancy.

The employer claimed she was terminated for poor attendance and inability to work full-time hours.

The Board found that the employer's reasons were not credible, as the applicant was an excellent worker and the employer had previously accommodated her schedule.

The Board concluded that the termination was tainted by consideration of her pregnancy, violating section 44 of the Employment Standards Act.

The applicant was awarded $13,639.00 in compensation, including direct wage loss, loss of reasonable expectation of continued employment, and pain and suffering.

The applicant union (OPSEU) applied for certification to represent paramedics.

The responding party (City/Region) claimed it was not the employer, asserting the Town of Ancaster was.

An intervenor union (CUPE) claimed the application was untimely because its existing collective agreement with the City/Region covered the paramedics.

The Board applied the York Condominium factors and found the City/Region was the employer at the time of the application, given its control over hiring, remuneration, and intention to create an employment relationship.

The Board also found that the scope clause of the CUPE collective agreement did not automatically include the new paramedic classifications, as the parties had not agreed to their inclusion, and therefore the clause did not bar OPSEU's certification application.

The applicant, a director of Don Baxi Agencies Inc., filed an appeal of an Employment Standards Officer's Order to Pay.

The parties reached a settlement agreement requiring the applicant to pay $19,440 to the responding party in full satisfaction of the liability.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board issued a consent order incorporating the terms of the settlement, which provided that if the funds were not paid by the specified date, the original Order to Pay would be affirmed and enforceable.