Gordon F. Luborsky

The Union filed a grievance alleging the Employer violated the collective agreement and the Ontario Human Rights Code by failing to offer off-season work to a seasonal Sawmill Interpreter.

The Employer raised a preliminary objection, arguing the grievance failed to disclose a prima facie case.

The Arbitrator dismissed the preliminary objection in part, finding the particulars supported an arguable claim of a collective agreement breach and discrimination based on perceived disability, but dismissed the claim of age discrimination.

The Grievor, a 35-year employee with a clean record, was given a one-day suspension without pay for providing short notice (about 12 hours) of his need to be absent from a scheduled shift to attend a Grievance Settlement Board hearing as a named grievor.

The Employer granted the time off with pay but disciplined the Grievor for violating its policy requiring four weeks' notice for planned absences, which caused scheduling stress and overtime costs.

The Arbitrator found that while the Employer could have reasonably denied the request under its policy, it could not discipline the Grievor after granting the time off.

The short notice was due to the Union's Grievance Officer's negligence, not the Grievor's culpable misconduct.

The grievance was allowed, and the discipline was ordered removed with full compensation.

The parties engaged in settlement discussions which did not resolve the grievance.

The arbitrator scheduled the continuation of the hearing for February 29, 2024.

In the interim, the Union was ordered to provide the Employer with particulars regarding the details of the grievance and the remedies requested by January 19, 2024.

If the Union fails to do so, the Employer may bring a motion to dismiss the grievance.

The union grieved the employer's decision to deny the grievor's request for a compassionate leave of absence with pay for the final 9 days of her absence from work to care for her injured husband.

The employer had granted paid leave for the first 16 days of her absence but denied the remainder, expecting the grievor to access other resources or use vacation/banked time.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that the collective agreement conferred no absolute right to paid compassionate leave and that the employer's exercise of discretion was reasonable, made in good faith, and based on relevant considerations.

The grievor requested a short-notice adjournment of the hearing due to an asserted illness.

The Grievance Settlement Board granted the adjournment on the condition that the grievor provide complete written particulars and documentary evidence of the illness by a specified date.

Failure to provide the required information would result in the dismissal of the grievances without further notice.

The Union requested an adjournment of the arbitration hearing due to the grievor's illness and a recent bereavement.

The Employer consented to the adjournment on the condition that the grievor provide satisfactory medical proof of illness and particulars of the grievance claims, which had been outstanding for over a year.

The Arbitrator granted the adjournment on these terms, ordering that the grievance would be dismissed if the required documentation was not provided by the specified deadline.

The parties agreed to a procedural framework for hearing 11 related grievances before the Grievance Settlement Board.

The arbitrator issued a consent order directing that the grievances be heard separately in chronological order, with evidence from the first grievance applying to subsequent ones, and set timelines for particulars and document production.

In a preliminary decision regarding six grievances alleging health and safety violations, the Employer challenged four of the Union's remaining particulars as expanding the scope of the grievances.

The Arbitrator applied a balancing approach, striking particulars that went beyond what was reasonably contemplated by the grievance forms (such as demanding physical searches of clients when the grievance only sought clarity on prohibited items, and raising new hire training issues in a grievance about policies for violent offenders).

However, the Arbitrator allowed particulars relating to the assessment of collateral contacts and the training of managers, finding them sufficiently encompassed by the broad terms of their respective grievances.

The union grieved that the employer failed to provide a safe workplace for a correctional officer during an incident at the Vanier Centre for Women.

Following unsuccessful settlement discussions, the arbitrator issued procedural directions for the continuation of the hearing.

The union was ordered to provide particulars regarding claimed sick days, compensatory time off, and the specific alleged breaches of the collective agreement and occupational health and safety legislation.

The Union filed an individual grievance on behalf of a Probation and Parole Officer alleging the Employer failed to take reasonable precautions for his health and safety, specifically challenging the Personal Safety Training program.

The Employer raised preliminary objections to the Union's particulars.

The Arbitrator granted the Employer's motions to strike particulars that referred to events occurring more than three years before the grievance, applying the Board's three-year rule.

The Arbitrator also struck particulars relating to the Workplace Violence Risk Assessment and other general policies, finding they improperly expanded the scope of the individual grievance.

Finally, the Arbitrator ruled that any remedies available under the individual grievance would be limited to the grievor personally, rather than applying to the bargaining unit as a whole.

The Association filed a grievance on behalf of the Complainant alleging the Employer breached the collective agreement by reducing her starting salary from $68,000 to $63,482 one day after she signed her initial fixed-term contract, and failed to provide 16 weeks' notice of termination under the Employment Standards Act.

The Arbitrator dismissed the ESA notice claim, finding the Employer provided the required notice at the time of hiring.

The Arbitrator found the Employer breached the collective agreement by unilaterally reducing the salary without fresh consideration.

Although the grievance was filed outside the 30-day time limit, the Arbitrator held the breach was a continuing violation, entitling the Complainant to damages for the 30-day period prior to the filing of the grievance.

The parties disputed the calculation of remedial compensation following a previous decision that reinstated the grievor.

The employer required the grievor to return to work on short notice, and when she was unavailable for three days due to prior commitments, the employer did not pay her for those days.

The union argued this violated the reinstatement order.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the employer's timeline was generally reasonable, but the grievor was reasonably unavailable for one of the three days due to a pre-existing appointment.

The Board ordered the employer to pay the grievor for one day of lost wages.

The Association requested the production of a pre-screening score sheet for all 37 applicants in a job posting grievance.

The grievor was one of five candidates selected for an interview based on the pre-screening scores.

The Employer resisted production, arguing the document was not arguably relevant because the final selection decision was based on interview performance and written work, not the pre-screening scores.

The Grievance Settlement Board denied the Association's request, finding that since the grievor was granted an interview and the pre-screening score was not relied upon by the selection committee in its ultimate decision, the score sheet had no arguable relevance to the grievance.

The Union filed a grievance alleging the Employer violated the collective agreement by not awarding the grievor the position of Investigations Officer.

The parties agreed to resolve the dispute in a summary fashion under the collective agreement.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued a consent order requiring the Employer to screen the grievor in and grant her an interview for one future Investigations Officer competition within a specified region and timeframe, without guaranteeing she will be the successful candidate.

At the conclusion of the evidence, the parties requested the opportunity to submit their final arguments in writing.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued a procedural order establishing the timetable and instructions for the delivery of written submissions and reply submissions.

The parties entered into a Memorandum of Settlement but unanticipated circumstances arose regarding its interpretation and implementation.

Following a telephone conference, the Vice-Chair ordered that the terms of the settlement be held in abeyance pending further discussions between the parties, to be scheduled after April 30, 2016.

The grievor, a correctional officer, was discharged for failing to disclose an off-duty impaired driving charge for two years, contrary to the employer's policies.

The union grieved the dismissal, arguing it was disproportionate.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that while the grievor committed a serious breach of policy, the off-duty conduct did not strike at the core of the employment relationship.

Applying the McKinley and Dowling frameworks, the Board concluded that dismissal was an overly harsh and disproportionate response.

The grievance was allowed in part, substituting a 20-day unpaid suspension and ordering reinstatement with partial compensation.

The grievor, a casual employee at a small-town LCBO store, was terminated for allegedly stealing a bottle of tequila from the employer's store and for off-duty misconduct at a licensed establishment that was a customer of the employer.

The arbitrator found that the employer failed to prove the grievor stole product from its store.

However, the grievor's off-duty misconduct, which included taking a bottle of tequila from the customer without payment while intoxicated, warranted discipline as it negatively impacted the employer's reputation.

The arbitrator concluded that discharge was disproportionate and substituted a five-day suspension, ordering the grievor's reinstatement with conditions.

The parties agreed to a protocol for the efficient hearing of two grievances alleging workplace harassment and failure to accommodate.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued a consent order setting deadlines for particulars, disclosure, and the identification of preliminary issues, and directed the scheduling of six hearing dates.

The parties agreed to a procedural protocol to marshal further discussions and evidence regarding a grievance alleging contravention of the Employer's Workplace Discrimination and Harassment Policy.

The Vice-Chair confirmed the protocol as an order of the Grievance Settlement Board, setting deadlines for settlement proposals, exchange of particulars, documentary disclosure, and scheduling of the formal hearing.