Jules Bloch

During an arbitration hearing, the Grievance Settlement Board directed the union and the employer to hold a meeting within 60 days to discuss the implementation and operationalization of time out of cell requirements under the Segregation Review and Oversight policy.

The Board ordered that no specific individual grievances or discipline be discussed at the meeting, and that neither party is permitted to bring counsel.

The union filed 14 grievances on behalf of a flexible part-time registrar regarding hours of work, sick leave, discipline, return to work, and health and safety issues.

The arbitrator dismissed the majority of the grievances, finding that the employer properly applied the collective agreement regarding the scheduling of hours and payment for days attending the Grievance Settlement Board.

The arbitrator upheld a letter of discipline for insubordination but restored 1.5 hours of pay for a medical appointment.

The arbitrator also allowed the return-to-work grievances in part, directing the employer to pay two weeks' pay for failing to accommodate the grievor in a timely manner.

The employer requested an extension of time to file submissions directed in a previous decision due to a medical issue.

The union consented to the request.

The arbitrator granted the extension, allowing the employer until May 10, 2023, to file their submissions.

The Arbitrator was appointed to hear 14 grievances between the union and the employer.

Following submissions from the parties on how the matter would be adjudicated, the Arbitrator issued procedural directions under article 22.16 of the collective agreement.

The union's filings were deemed complete, and the employer was directed to reply by a specified date.

The Arbitrator indicated that further explanation or oral submissions would be requested for specific grievances if necessary, while others would be decided on the written materials.

In a grievance arbitration concerning a job competition for a historical blacksmith position, the parties agreed to a Memorandum of Settlement directing a reassessment of the candidates by a jointly chosen evaluator.

The employer subsequently raised an issue of actual bias or apprehension of bias against the evaluator, arguing that his evaluation report contained demeaning and inappropriate comments about the successful candidate.

The Grievance Settlement Board found no actual bias or apprehension of bias, concluding that the evaluator's strong opinions were based on the testing results rather than preconceived animus.

However, the Board directed that the inappropriate comments be expunged from the record.

The Union requested an extension of time to file particulars, citing the grievor's illness, though it could not provide specific details of the illness or explain the delay.

The Grievance Settlement Board granted a two-week extension to September 11, 2009, ordering that the grievance would be dismissed if particulars were not provided by that date, subject to the Union's right to show cause for reinstatement based on exceptional circumstances.

The union failed to attend a scheduled hearing before the Grievance Settlement Board despite having actual knowledge of the date.

The employer requested that the matter be dismissed with costs.

The Vice-Chair directed the registrar to reschedule the matter and ordered the union to show cause at the next hearing date why the grievance should not be dismissed.

The union filed grievances alleging the employer failed to comply with a memorandum of settlement provision requiring a net payment of $500 or $300 to employees.

The employer had grossed up the amounts by 10% and remitted the 10% as withholding tax, which was later determined to be an unlawful tax approach.

The arbitrator found the language clear and unambiguous, holding that the employer was responsible for the lawful tax consequences of the net payment and that the proper tax approach was the one used for bonus payments.

The grievor, a Tax Auditor, requested a half day of special and compassionate leave to attend a medical appointment for his daughter, who had a pre-existing medical condition.

The employer denied the request on the basis that the appointment was regular, recurring, and non-emergency, requiring the grievor to use a vacation day instead.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the employer properly applied the four-part framework for discretionary leave and reasonably concluded that the circumstances did not warrant special and compassionate leave, particularly given the availability of other leave entitlements.

The union referred a group grievance to arbitration concerning the actions of a single supervisor towards various members of the bargaining unit, alleging a poisoned work environment.

The employer raised preliminary objections, arguing the grievance did not relate to a single event and could not be brought as a group grievance.

The Grievance Settlement Board agreed with the employer, finding that the separate alleged incidents did not meet the collective agreement's requirement that a group grievance involve more than one employee directly affected by one specific incident or circumstance.

The grievance was dismissed.

The union sought to consolidate multiple grievance files and raised issues regarding the arbitrator's jurisdiction to entertain remedies outside a prior memorandum of settlement.

At the hearing, the arbitrator directed that the files be listed together for hearing sequentially.

In light of this direction, the union withdrew its request for consolidation, and the employer reserved its right to raise jurisdictional issues as the individual files are heard.

The parties entered into a memorandum of settlement granting the arbitrator jurisdiction to deal with all grievances relating to the net payment after deductions issues from the year 2000 negotiations.

The employer raised a timeliness argument, asserting that the collective agreement created a ten-day time limit.

The arbitrator found that all grievances filed on or before June 30, 2001, were timely and would proceed, while those filed after that date were untimely and dismissed.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued a clarification of its May 15, 2000 decision regarding a union grievance.

The employer asserted that Articles 32, 36, and 39 of the collective agreement fell under the general exemption set out in paragraph 3 of the previous decision.

The Vice Chair consulted his notes and recollection from the first day of hearing and confirmed that Articles 32, 36, and 39 were intended to form part of the exemption of coverage for the affected employees.

The grievor alleged unjust termination following the Ontario Realty Corporation's decision to pursue alternative service delivery through competitive tendering.

The union and the employer had previously entered into minutes of settlement and release regarding the transfer of work, which included the withdrawal of all related grievances.

The Grievance Settlement Board found it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the grievance as the matter had been settled and withdrawn.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under the ICI Provincial Agreement, alleging that the responding employer improperly assigned construction work as maintenance work.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the grievance, arguing that the union had already submitted the same dispute to the alternative dispute resolution mechanism under the General Presidents' Agreement (GPA), which resulted in a final and binding decision.

The Board upheld the preliminary motion, finding that the union had initiated the GPA grievance process and fully participated in it.

The Board concluded that it would be unfair to allow the union to re-litigate the issue after receiving an unfavourable decision from the GPA panel, and terminated the proceeding.

The applicants brought jurisdictional dispute applications regarding the assignment of work for the fabrication and installation of a monorail at the Bruce Nuclear Generating Station.

The Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 1000 raised a preliminary constitutional challenge, arguing that labour relations at the nuclear facility fall under federal jurisdiction.

The Board applied the functional test and determined that while the production of nuclear energy and its attendant safety concerns are within federal jurisdiction, the fabrication and installation of the monorail is not integral to the federal undertaking.

Having found it had jurisdiction, the Board directed Ontario Hydro to assign the work to the applicants based on collective agreements and historical practice.

The applicant union brought related employer and sale of business applications, as well as a construction industry grievance, against several electrical contracting companies controlled by a single key principal.

The responding parties brought a preliminary motion alleging reasonable apprehension of bias because the panel had previously attempted to mediate the dispute at the parties' request.

The Board dismissed the bias motion, finding the parties had consented to the mediation-arbitration process.

On the merits, the Board found that the principal was the key person in all the companies, which were engaged in related activities under common control and direction.

The Board declared that a sale of business had occurred and that the companies constituted one employer bound by the provincial collective agreement, but limited the retrospective effect of the declaration due to the union's delay.

The applicant union filed unfair labour practice complaints against the responding party, a successor employer providing security services.

The responding party brought preliminary motions to dismiss the complaints, arguing that the union's three-and-a-half month delay in filing prejudiced its ability to defend the claims, and that the statutory freeze under section 81(2) of the Labour Relations Act did not apply because it had not received formal Board notice of the certification application prior to the successorship.

The Board dismissed the delay motion, finding the delay was short and any prejudice could be addressed remedially.

The Board also dismissed the notice motion, interpreting section 64(3) of the Act to mean that the statutory freeze environment flows through to the successor employer regardless of whether it received formal Board notice.

The applicant trade union applied for certification of a bargaining unit consisting of all full-time meat department employees of the responding party.

The responding party argued that the proposed unit was no longer a 'craft' unit under section 6(3) of the Labour Relations Act, claiming the employees no longer exercised technical skills distinguishing them from other employees.

The Board found that the meat cutters and wrappers continued to exercise technical skills and constituted a craft unit.

Finding that more than 55% of the employees in the unit were members of the applicant, the Board granted the application and issued a certificate.

The applicant union filed a jurisdictional complaint regarding the assignment of work for the installation of a local area network computer system at a nuclear generating station.

The employer had assigned the work to the responding union's members, who were maintenance workers, rather than the applicant's members, who were construction electricians.

The Board determined that the work constituted construction rather than maintenance, and that the applicant's members possessed the requisite skill and ability.

The Board concluded that the correct assignment of the work in dispute was to the applicant union.