Janice Johnston

The union filed a grievance alleging the grievor, a social worker, was terminated without just cause following allegations of sexual harassment of a placement student.

The arbitrator found that while the grievor made poor decisions, his conduct did not amount to sexual harassment warranting termination.

However, concluding that the employment relationship was irreparably harmed, the arbitrator declined to reinstate the grievor and remitted the matter to the parties to craft an appropriate remedy.

The grievor received a five-day suspension for insubordination and using profanities toward his manager.

The matter proceeded via expedited arbitration.

The arbitrator found that the grievor did not accept the need to modify his behaviour, denied most of the conduct, and failed to apologize.

As the grievor did not candidly acknowledge the inappropriateness of his conduct, the arbitrator declined to reduce the suspension and dismissed the grievance.

Following a mediation/arbitration process under the collective agreement, the Grievance Settlement Board directed the employer to reinstate seven vacation days to the grievor's bank and to reimburse her $5,000 for medical expenses upon production of receipts.

Two employees were discharged for multiple reasons, including their alleged involvement in moderating a highly inappropriate and malicious workplace blog.

One employee was also discharged for using government resources to conduct a personal business.

The other employee was discharged for unauthorized access to a government database, running a personal business on work time, and using his government email to receive and distribute highly offensive pornographic images.

The arbitrator found that the employer had established just cause for both discharges.

The arbitrator emphasized the employees' lack of honesty during the investigation and the hearing, concluding that the employment relationship and trust had been irreparably broken.

The grievances were dismissed.

The complainant failed to attend a scheduled grievance arbitration hearing regarding her ten-day suspension and alleged breach of a settlement agreement.

Despite being directed to attend or provide medical justification for her absence, she did not appear or communicate with her union representative.

The employer requested the complaint be dismissed and withdrew its own allegations.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the dispute due to the complainant's failure to participate.

The union requested an adjournment of a grievance arbitration hearing because the complainant failed to attend, citing a medical leave but providing no medical documentation.

The employer opposed the adjournment, noting a history of delays and the complainant's lack of respect for the process, but agreed in the alternative to a peremptory adjournment.

The Vice-Chair granted the adjournment on a peremptory basis, directing the complainant to attend the next scheduled hearing date or provide sufficient medical justification for her absence.

The parties reached a settlement regarding grievances alleging the employer violated the collective agreement provisions dealing with video display terminals (VDTs).

The settlement provides for relief to correctional officers working in specific modules during peak periods and a lump sum payment of $25,000.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued a consent order incorporating the Minutes of Settlement and remained seized of any issues regarding its implementation.

The grievor, a warehouse employee with eight years of service, was caught on video surveillance concealing a bottle of liquor in his clothing.

Management confronted him in a boardroom, retrieved the stolen product, and then allowed him to speak with his union representative.

The union grieved the discharge, arguing that the employer violated Article 26.3 of the collective agreement by not providing union representation prior to the confrontation, and alternatively, that the penalty of discharge should be mitigated due to the grievor's drug addiction.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the brief interaction to secure the stolen property did not constitute a disciplinary meeting under Article 26.3.

Furthermore, the Board upheld the discharge, concluding that the grievor failed to provide sufficient medical evidence of his addiction or rehabilitation to mitigate the penalty for theft.

The union grieved a two-day suspension imposed on a bus driver who received a red light camera offence notice.

The employer had recently implemented a policy mandating an automatic two-day suspension for such offences, departing from its previous practice of issuing little or no discipline.

The arbitrator found that while the employer was entitled to implement a stricter policy to address safety concerns, the automatic penalty provision was unenforceable as it removed management's discretion to consider individual circumstances.

However, upon reviewing the specific facts of the grievor's case, including his speeding, the length of time the light was red, and his lack of remorse, the arbitrator concluded that the two-day suspension was a just and reasonable penalty.

The grievance was dismissed.

In an interim decision regarding the discharge of three union members, the Association objected to the admissibility of reports and witness statements prepared by a workplace investigator, arguing they constituted hearsay.

The Association requested that if admitted, the employer be directed to call the interviewed witnesses before the investigator to avoid prejudice.

The Grievance Settlement Board admitted the reports, noting the investigator would be called as a witness and subject to cross-examination.

The Board declined to direct the employer's order of witnesses, stating that any hearsay concerns regarding non-testifying witnesses could be addressed through redaction later in the proceeding.

In a grievance alleging the Ministry inappropriately disclosed employees' names and addresses to an inmate and failed to provide legal representation, the Grievance Settlement Board previously ordered the Ministry to produce documents.

A law firm holding some documents refused production, claiming privilege.

The Board directed Ministry counsel to attend the law firm, review the documents, and prepare a list of arguably relevant documents for which privilege is claimed, to be provided to the union prior to the next hearing date.

In a grievance alleging the Ministry violated the Human Rights Code and collective agreement by inappropriately disclosing grievors' names to an inmate and failing to provide legal representation, both parties made disclosure requests.

The union consented to producing receipts and medical documentation.

The employer consented to producing IIU report backup documentation, insurance policies, and the civil litigation file.

The employer objected to the union's request for records of other employees provided with legal representation in similar lawsuits, arguing it was a fishing expedition.

The arbitrator ordered the employer to review and produce information for three specific examples identified by the union, finding that identifying specific cases met the test of arguable relevance.

The parties sought clarification of a previous arbitration award regarding a compressed work week arrangement at the Whitby Mental Health Centre.

The issue was the definition of 'nursing staff' for the purpose of voting on nursing schedules.

The Vice-Chair clarified that, consistent with an earlier decision, the term 'nursing staff' includes Registered Nurses, Registered Practical Nurses, and Patient Care Assistants.

The parties disputed the interpretation of compressed work week (CWW) agreements at the Whitby Mental Health Centre.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued declarations clarifying that the CWW agreements do not require an annual review unless requested or if termination is contemplated, specified voting procedures if a review occurs, clarified that team leaders are not always required to work 8-hour shifts, stated that up to 15% of staff may be required to work 8-hour shifts if operationally necessary, and confirmed that pre-existing shift change policies are not altered.

The grievances were terminated.

The union filed grievances on behalf of four employees regarding the calculation of their acting pay during temporary assignments.

The employees received a 3% increase upon commencing their acting assignments pursuant to the collective agreement.

When an across-the-board wage increase of 2.5% took effect, the employer applied it to their acting rates rather than recalculating the 3% increase based on the new home position rates.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievances, finding that the collective agreement only required the 3% calculation at the commencement of the acting assignment and did not mandate recalculation upon subsequent wage increases.

The union sought interim relief requiring the Ministry to provide correctional officers working at video display terminals (VDTs) with 10-minute relief periods and annual eye examinations, as per the collective agreement, pending the outcome of the main grievance.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the application, finding that while the union had an arguable case, the balance of harm favoured the Ministry due to the union's significant delay in bringing the application and the lack of evidence demonstrating actual or potential harm to employees.

The employer brought preliminary motions to dismiss three group grievances regarding the evaluation of a compressed work week agreement.

The employer argued the grievances were not arbitrable due to prior Minutes of Settlement and were untimely.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed both motions, finding that the union's 'acknowledgement' of the employer's evaluation criteria in the settlement did not constitute 'agreement' to them, and that the grievances were timely as they were filed shortly after the employer announced the review.

The Employer brought a motion to dismiss the Union's grievance regarding video display terminal (VDT) benefits for correctional officers, arguing the matter was barred by res judicata and issue estoppel due to a 1983 Grievance Settlement Board decision.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the motion, finding that the central issue in the prior case was whether the equipment was a VDT, whereas in the current case, the Employer conceded the equipment was a VDT but disputed whether the officers operated them continuously.

As the matters in dispute were not identical, the doctrines did not apply.

The Employer's alternative argument that the Board should defer to the prior decision was also dismissed because the factual context had changed significantly since 1983.

In an interim award regarding a grievance over Video Display Terminal (VDT) provisions in the collective agreement, the union brought a motion for the production of computer system data to establish the 'continuous' nature of VDT use by correctional officers.

The employer resisted, arguing the request was untimely, not arguably relevant, and prejudicial due to security concerns and volume.

The Grievance Settlement Board granted the union's motion, finding the data arguably relevant and the request timely.

To address the employer's security and volume concerns, the Board reduced the requested time frame to seven days and imposed strict confidentiality conditions on the disclosure.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued an interim decision on consent setting out procedural directions for a union grievance.

The directions included timelines for the exchange of particulars and disclosure, a process for resolving disputes via teleconference, and scheduling a continuation of the hearing at the Central East Institution to include opening statements and a site view.