Joseph D. Carrier

The grievor filed two grievances.

The first alleged he was improperly discouraged from applying for a Driver's position due to a superintendent's mistaken comment about inmate contact.

The arbitrator dismissed this grievance, finding the grievor's medical restrictions would have disqualified him regardless, and the comment did not violate the collective agreement.

The second grievance alleged harassment based on a manager's comment that the grievor's accommodated desk job was a 'non-job'.

The arbitrator found the comment inappropriate but isolated, and insufficient to attract a declaration or monetary relief.

Both grievances were dismissed.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of the grievor alleging she was not given 36.25 hours of work per week.

The employer argued the matter had already been resolved.

The arbitrator found that a Memorandum of Settlement signed by the grievor in January 2012 addressed and withdrew all outstanding grievances related to her hours of work.

As the current grievance was related to the issues resolved in that settlement, the arbitrator concluded there was no dispute left to adjudicate and denied the grievance.

The union filed a grievance alleging the employer unreasonably exercised its management rights by unilaterally adjusting the official range of rates for the Adjustment Advisory position, effectively downgrading the employees to a lower-paying classification.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the grievance for lack of jurisdiction.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that the true nature of the grievance was a classification dispute.

Under sections 51 and 52 of the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act, the Board is expressly deprived of jurisdiction to require a change in an employee's classification.

Accordingly, the employer's motion was granted and the grievance was dismissed.

The union filed a grievance alleging that the employer's human resources software (WIN) discriminated against a transgender employee by lacking gender-neutral prefixes and pronouns.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the grievance, arguing that its addition of the category 'unknown' to the system fully satisfied its duty to accommodate under the Human Rights Code.

The arbitrator dismissed the motion as premature, holding that evidence was required to assess whether the accommodation adequately addressed the specific nature of the alleged discrimination regarding gender identity and expression.

The grievor, a Financial Officer at the Family Responsibility Office, was terminated for cause after an IT forensic investigation revealed he had falsified pay stubs for a manager's mortgage brokerage business, conducted a personal accounting business during work hours using government resources, and disclosed confidential client information to a third party.

The grievor failed to attend the latter part of the arbitration hearings and provided no medical documentation to justify his absence.

The Grievance Settlement Board found the employer's evidence substantiated the misconduct.

The Board also dismissed the grievor's human rights allegations, finding no evidence of discriminatory treatment.

Given the serious nature of the misconduct and the grievor's failure to take ownership of his actions, the Board upheld the termination and dismissed the grievance.

The grievor failed to attend the scheduled arbitration hearing and failed to comply with prior Board orders requiring the production of specific medical evidence to justify his previous absences.

The Union requested another adjournment, providing only a clinic prescription note and a referral request, which the Board found inadequate.

The Board denied the adjournment request, noted the Union's case as closed since it had no other witnesses, and directed the matter to proceed to argument on the merits.

The Union sought an extension to provide medical documentation supporting the grievor's absence, following an earlier order requiring compelling medical evidence.

The grievor failed to attend the reconvened hearing and the medical note provided was deemed inadequate.

The Employer sought dismissal of the grievance or an order to proceed in the grievor's absence.

The Grievance Settlement Board declined to dismiss the grievance or proceed in absentia, citing potential denial of natural justice if the grievor was legitimately unfit.

The Board adjourned the remaining hearing dates but ordered the Union to produce satisfactory medical evidence prior to the next scheduled date, noting that the delay would be considered in any ultimate assessment of damages.

The Union brought a motion to adjourn the grievance arbitration proceedings due to the grievor's medical condition, supported by an email from the grievor's spouse and a brief doctor's note.

The Employer opposed the motion, arguing the medical evidence was inadequate.

The Grievance Settlement Board denied the adjournment motion, finding the doctor's note insufficient as it did not detail the grievor's limitations or restrictions.

The Union was directed to produce compelling medical evidence by a specified date, failing which the grievor's position would face dire consequences.

The union sought to withdraw a grievance alleging unjust dismissal on a 'without prejudice' basis, intending to pursue a related complaint before the Human Rights Tribunal.

The employer opposed the 'without prejudice' condition, arguing it was an abuse of process given the late stage of proceedings and previous rulings.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that the union was entitled to withdraw the grievance, but declined to attach either a 'with prejudice' or 'without prejudice' condition, leaving the consequences of the withdrawal to be determined by any future tribunal.

The Union moved to adjourn the scheduled hearing dates for a termination grievance, citing the grievor's inability to attend due to medical reasons and a recent family bereavement.

The Employer opposed the adjournment pending production of more comprehensive medical documentation.

The Grievance Settlement Board declined the motion to adjourn, finding insufficient information available, but allowed the Union to produce further medical information by a specified date or renew the request at the next scheduled hearing.

The employer brought a motion for disclosure and particulars in a grievance arbitration concerning the grievor's termination.

The employer alleged the grievor was dismissed for knowingly using a falsified pay stub to obtain a mortgage.

The union claimed the grievor was unaware of the falsified document.

The Vice-Chair ordered the union to disclose the grievor's mortgage applications and related documents, finding them highly relevant to the core issue.

The Vice-Chair also ordered the union to provide particulars of its allegations of discriminatory conduct by the employer.

The grievor, a corrections officer with 20 years of service, was terminated for off-duty conduct involving criminal harassment of his ex-wife, death threats to police, and a physical confrontation with police resulting in charges of assault with a weapon and impaired driving.

He also failed to report his arrests to his employer.

The union grieved the termination, arguing the conduct was off-duty and the grievor suffered from substance abuse issues.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding the grievor's conduct was egregious, inconsistent with his status as a peace officer, and harmed the employer's reputation.

The Board rejected the grievor's self-diagnosis of addiction and found no objective evidence of rehabilitation, concluding termination was justified.

The employer brought a motion requesting the Grievance Settlement Board assume jurisdiction to adjudicate human rights issues related to the grievor's termination, after the Human Rights Tribunal deferred the grievor's application pending the grievance outcome.

The union did not oppose the motion.

The Vice-Chair granted the motion, confirming the Board's jurisdiction to consider the employer's conduct in the context of potential Human Rights Code violations, and directed the union to provide particulars of the alleged discriminatory conduct.

The Union brought a motion seeking disclosure of documents regarding IT policy violations by six named individuals, arguing the information was relevant because the grievor was terminated in part for misusing the Employer's IT resources.

The Employer objected, arguing the Union's particulars were insufficient.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the motion, finding the Union's request overly broad and lacking sufficient particulars regarding the 'what', 'when', 'where', and 'how' of the alleged conduct.

The Union was granted leave to provide better particulars.

The employer brought a motion requesting the Grievance Settlement Board assume jurisdiction over all aspects of the grievor's unjust dismissal complaint, including allegations of discrimination under the Human Rights Code.

The grievor had filed a concurrent application with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, which indicated it might defer to the Board.

The Board granted the motion, finding it had concurrent jurisdiction to interpret and apply human rights legislation, and directed the grievance to proceed on the merits.

The union brought a motion for non-suit during a grievance arbitration concerning the termination of a corrections officer.

The grievor was terminated for off-duty conduct, including failing to notify the employer of criminal charges, making death threats to police, and engaging in a police chase resulting in charges of impaired driving and assault with a weapon.

The parties agreed to have the Board determine whether the employer had established a prima facie case for dismissal.

The Board concluded that the employer had adduced sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case for termination.

The motion for non-suit was dismissed, and the case was directed to proceed in the ordinary course.

The grievor, an Income Support Specialist with 25 years of service, was terminated for insubordination after failing to provide requested medical information and refusing to attend an independent medical examination (IME) to substantiate her absence due to 'workplace stress and anxiety'.

The grievor alleged the employer's actions were discriminatory and a reprisal for past grievances and a human rights complaint.

The Grievance Settlement Board found the employer's requests for medical information were reasonable and the grievor's refusal to cooperate constituted culpable conduct.

Finding no evidence of discrimination or reprisal, the Board upheld the termination and dismissed the grievance.

The Union brought a grievance regarding the termination of the grievor's employment.

On consent of the parties, the Grievance Settlement Board ordered the Employer to provide the Union with written particulars of the facts and documents it intends to rely upon to support its case for just cause dismissal.

The Board directed that failure to comply with the order may result in the Employer being precluded from adducing evidence on matters not particularized.

The Union brought a motion to change the venue of the grievance hearing from Toronto to the Niagara area, citing the grievor's medical condition and the inconvenience of bus travel.

The Employer opposed the motion, noting that the grievor refused to disclose the medical note supporting her request.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the motion, finding that the balance of convenience favoured Toronto and that the grievor's refusal to provide medical evidence to the Employer and the Board rendered her request for medical accommodation a nullity.

The union grieved the dismissal of an employee, alleging unjust dismissal tainted by human rights violations.

The grievor had also filed a complaint with the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

The union requested that the arbitration be deferred pending the Commission's hearing, while the employer argued the arbitration should proceed.

The Vice-Chair held that the Grievance Settlement Board has concurrent jurisdiction to interpret and apply the Human Rights Code alongside the Commission.

Because the Commission had not yet scheduled a hearing, the Vice-Chair declined to defer the matter and directed that the arbitration proceed in the ordinary course.