Joseph D. Carrier

The Grievance Settlement Board held a teleconference to consider an adjournment of a scheduled hearing.

The grievor had filed a complaint with the Ontario Human Rights Commission that partially overlapped with the issues before the Board.

The Board ordered the hearing scheduled for January 21, 2008, adjourned pending the imminent release of a ruling from the Commission regarding a potential stay of its proceedings.

The union filed a grievance alleging the employer unjustly denied the grievor a temporary assignment of less than six months duration, arguing she should have been selected based on seniority.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the collective agreement explicitly excluded temporary assignments of less than six months from posting provisions.

The employer had unfettered discretion in making such assignments, and absent any allegations of bad faith or discrimination, there was no basis to intervene.

The grievor alleged she was improperly denied a position as a Collection Officer.

She had since attained the position, so the grievance was limited to damages for the interim period.

The grievor scored 37.5% on the competition tests, failing to meet the 50% threshold and scoring 15% lower than the lowest successful candidate.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding no evidence of bad faith, discrimination, or inappropriate testing, and concluding the grievor was not relatively equal to the successful candidates.

The union filed a grievance alleging the employer improperly denied the grievor a promotion to a Tax Auditor 4 position.

The employer had required candidates to achieve a 55% threshold on a written test.

The grievor initially scored 55.25% when marked by an outside consultant, but her score was reduced to 49.25% upon remarking by an internal transition team.

The arbitrator found that the inconsistent test results undermined their reliability and that it was inappropriate to disqualify the grievor based solely on the test results without considering her past record and experience.

The matter was remitted to the parties to determine an appropriate solution.

The grievor, a former Correctional Officer with permanent physical restrictions, was accommodated as a Records Clerk in 1998 pursuant to a grievance settlement.

In 2005, he filed a new grievance seeking to be accommodated in his pre-injury position of Correctional Officer, arguing the duty to accommodate is ongoing.

The employer brought a preliminary motion arguing the 1998 settlement barred the current grievance.

The Grievance Settlement Board allowed the employer's motion and dismissed the grievance, finding that the 1998 settlement was valid, did not conflict with the Human Rights Code, and exhausted the grievor's accommodation rights absent a change in his medical condition or workplace circumstances.

The Union grieved the Employer's unilateral transfer of a 'C' Level Manager from the Northern Region to a vacancy in the Western Region, arguing it violated the collective agreement by depriving Western Region employees of their seniority rights to bid on the vacancy.

The Employer maintained that lateral transfers within the same classification across regions were a valid exercise of management rights and did not trigger posting requirements.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the collective agreement did not restrict lateral transfers within the 'C' Manager classification and that the Employer's decision, based on the transferred employee's medical and compassionate grounds, was bona fide and not unreasonable.

The employer moved to dismiss a grievance alleging discrimination on the basis of marital status.

The grievor had been transferred to a different store because she was married to a co-worker.

The employer argued the transfer was implemented pursuant to a binding memorandum of settlement resolving the husband's earlier grievance.

The arbitrator dismissed the employer's preliminary motion, holding that neither a union nor an employee can contract out of the protections of the Human Rights Code.

Because the settlement itself was premised on the spousal relationship and prima facie raised a potential violation of the Code, it did not bar an inquiry into the legitimacy of the transfer.

In a grievance regarding the discharge of an employee for alleged improper use of an air miles program, the union challenged the admissibility of videotape evidence captured by workplace security cameras.

The union argued that using the security footage for disciplinary purposes constituted an unreasonable intrusion into the employee's privacy.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that while employees have a marginal expectation of privacy in a public retail setting, this expectation is outweighed by the employer's interest in protecting the safety and security of the store.

The Board found the video surveillance was a reasonable intrusion and, because the tapes were relevant to the disciplinary issues, ruled the evidence admissible.

The union filed a policy grievance alleging the employer failed to create the required number of permanent full-time positions under a Letter of Understanding.

The central issue was whether hours worked by casual employees on night shifts should be included in the calculation of casual hours worked to determine if a full-time position exists.

The employer argued that night shift assignments were temporary under the collective agreement and thus excluded from the calculation.

The arbitrator found that the collective agreement limited night shift assignments to six months, making them temporary by definition.

Therefore, the employer's practice of excluding these hours was consistent with the collective agreement, and the grievance was dismissed.

The Union grieved the Employer's unilateral transfer of a store manager to a vacant position without posting it, alleging a violation of the Collective Agreement.

The Employer argued it had the management right to transfer employees laterally before posting vacancies, and noted the transfer accommodated the employee's personal and medical needs.

As the transferred employee appeared on his own behalf and his rights under the Human Rights Code could potentially override other considerations, the Grievance Settlement Board adjourned the proceedings to allow him time to consult counsel and confirm whether he will rely on the Code to defend his transfer.

The grievor, a ferry captain, was suspended for 20 days after leaving the wheelhouse during boarding without ensuring his replacement was present or that mooring lines were secured.

The ferry subsequently drifted from the dock due to a mechanical failure in the emergency steering system, leaving passengers stranded.

The grievor argued that an oppressive work schedule caused fatigue and a sudden stomach ailment, excusing his departure.

The arbitrator found no medical evidence to support the grievor's claims of fatigue or illness and concluded that the grievor abandoned his post without taking appropriate safety measures.

The grievance was dismissed and the 20-day suspension was upheld.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the grievance regarding the grievor's surplus notice was untimely.

The union sought to adjourn the matter pending a decision by the Joint Insurance Benefits Review Committee (JIBROC) regarding the grievor's long-term income protection (LTIP) claim, or to consolidate the proceedings.

The arbitrator extended the time limit for filing the grievance, finding the delay was brief and the nature of the grievance significant.

The arbitrator dismissed the union's motions to adjourn or consolidate, concluding that the issue before the board was the propriety of the employer's actions in issuing the surplus notice, not the validity of the LTIP claim itself.

The union filed grievances alleging the employer failed to provide proper notice of termination when operations were divested and employees were transferred to a successor employer.

The employer brought a preliminary motion arguing there was no arbitrable difference, as the grievors were not laid off under the collective agreement, obligations under the relevant appendix were resolved by a prior agreement, and the Employment Standards Act did not apply due to continuity of employment.

The arbitrator agreed, finding no difference between the parties and therefore no jurisdiction under the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act.

The grievances were dismissed.