Kelly Waddingham

The Union filed a group grievance alleging the Employer breached the Extended Hours Memorandum of Agreement regarding flex days and shift schedules.

Following case management discussions, the Union raised concerns about outstanding pre-hearing production.

The Arbitrator found the requested documents and information arguably relevant and ordered the Employer to produce them by April 30, 2026.

The union filed a grievance alleging the employer breached the Extended Hours Memorandum of Agreement by failing to evenly distribute flex days, requiring employees to attend the workplace, and suspending flex work arrangements.

The parties engaged in mediation and agreed to a case management schedule for document production and the preparation of an Agreed Statement of Facts.

The arbitrator issued a consent order setting out the schedule and scheduling continuation dates.

The Union requested an adjournment of the grievance arbitration hearing to obtain a medical opinion regarding the grievor's cognitive capacity to assist in preparing particulars and participating in the proceedings.

The Employer did not oppose a short adjournment, though it reserved its right to bring preliminary motions to dismiss the grievances.

The Arbitrator granted the adjournment, directing the Union to obtain the medical opinion by December 15, 2025, before scheduling a conference call to determine next steps.

The union grieved the termination of the grievor's employment for alleged job abandonment.

Following mediation sessions, the parties agreed to a process for litigating the grievance using an Agreed Statement of Fact and Will-Say Statements.

The arbitrator issued a case management direction setting out the schedule for pre-hearing production, document delivery, and future hearing dates.

The union filed a grievance following the termination of the grievor's employment.

The employer requested pre-hearing production of the grievor's medical records, but the grievor failed to sign the necessary release forms despite multiple case management decisions.

At a hearing, the parties agreed to a new case management schedule for the production of records and a subsequent mediation/arbitration date.

The arbitrator warned the grievor that further failure to participate could result in the dismissal of the grievance.

The union requested an adjournment of a grievance arbitration hearing due to the grievor's family health emergency.

The employer opposed, arguing the union failed to comply with prior case management directions to provide comprehensive particulars, and requested the grievances be dismissed.

The arbitrator granted the adjournment given the advance notice of the emergency, declined to dismiss the grievances, but issued strict new deadlines for the provision of particulars and warned that further non-compliance could result in dismissal.

The parties convened for a grievance arbitration regarding a seven-day suspension.

After unsuccessful mediation, the parties agreed on procedural steps to manage hearing time efficiently, including the use of Will-Say statements for the employer's witnesses.

The arbitrator recorded the parties' agreements and scheduled continuation dates for the hearing.

The union requested an adjournment after the grievor failed to attend the scheduled video hearing.

The employer opposed the adjournment but acknowledged the Board's procedure of allowing the union an opportunity to determine the reason for non-attendance.

The arbitrator granted a conditional adjournment, requiring the grievor to provide a full and frank explanation for their absence, and reserved the employer's right to renew its motion to dismiss if the explanation is insufficient.

The parties attempted to mediate a job competition grievance and subsequently engaged in case management.

The arbitrator issued a scheduling order setting deadlines for notice to the incumbent, prehearing production, delivery of particulars, and the preparation of an agreed statement of facts.

Continuation dates were scheduled for late 2025.

The parties met to mediate two grievances alleging discrimination based on disability and failure to accommodate, resulting in a loss of pay and vacation credits.

The parties determined that case management was necessary to facilitate mediation.

The arbitrator issued a case management decision outlining the agreed-upon schedule for the delivery of particulars, prehearing production, and preliminary motions leading up to the scheduled mediation.

The union filed a grievance after the grievor was declared to have abandoned his position and his employment was terminated.

During a conference call, union counsel reported that the grievor had not communicated with the union despite numerous attempts.

The arbitrator issued a decision strongly urging the grievor to contact the union and warning that any future failure to attend a mediation or hearing without adequate notice or explanation could lead to the dismissal of the grievance.

The parties convened for a mediation/arbitration regarding a group grievance alleging the Employer failed to fairly distribute overtime hours during the 2023 fire season.

Following a brief attempt at mediation, the parties engaged in case management discussions and agreed to a timeline for the delivery of comprehensive particulars, prehearing production requests, and the provision of outstanding production.

The next day of mediation/arbitration was scheduled for April 10, 2025.

The parties attended a case management hearing regarding two grievances arising from discipline.

The arbitrator issued a scheduling order on consent, setting dates for pre-hearing production, delivery of particulars, exchange of an agreed statement of facts, and hearing dates for mediation/arbitration.

The union filed a grievance after the grievor was provided with notice that their fixed term contract would end.

Following an unsuccessful mediation, a case management hearing was held.

The parties agreed to a schedule for consolidation, prehearing production, particulars, and the preparation of an agreed statement of fact prior to the first day of mediation/arbitration.

The union filed a grievance alleging the employer failed to accommodate the grievor.

Following unsuccessful mediation, the parties agreed to a schedule for the delivery of particulars, pre-hearing production of documents including medical records, and preliminary motions.

The arbitrator issued a case management decision formalizing the agreed-upon timeline and scheduling future hearing dates.

The parties met to mediate a settlement of a termination grievance but determined that prehearing production was necessary.

The arbitrator issued a case direction outlining the agreed-upon schedule for prehearing production, exchange of documents, and a subsequent mediation date.

The parties convened for a mediation/arbitration regarding a grievance alleging violations of the collective agreement, the Occupational Health and Safety Act, and the Human Rights Code.

Following an unsuccessful mediation, the parties agreed to a procedural schedule for prehearing production and the exchange of witness declarations.

The arbitrator issued a case management decision formalizing the agreed-upon manner of proceeding and schedule.

The parties were unable to mediate a resolution to two grievances.

The employer indicated its intention to bring a preliminary motion to remove the union's representative on the basis that he will likely be a witness.

The arbitrator set a schedule for the employer to particularize its request and for the union to respond, and scheduled the preliminary motion for a hearing.

The parties were unable to mediate a resolution to a termination grievance.

On consent, the arbitrator issued a procedural order establishing a timetable for production of documents, an agreed statement of facts, and scheduling the hearing dates for late 2024 and early 2025.

The employer brought a preliminary motion challenging the arbitrator's jurisdiction to hear a grievance regarding the effective date of a collective agreement.

The employer argued that the Treasury Board Secretariat's statutory authority to ratify Crown agency collective agreements was outside the arbitrator's jurisdiction.

The arbitrator dismissed the motion, finding that the core dispute concerned the interpretation of the phrase 'date of ratification' within the collective agreement, which falls squarely within an arbitrator's exclusive jurisdiction under section 48(1) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.