Kenneth Petryshen

The parties appeared before the Grievance Settlement Board regarding two grievances.

On consent, the Union withdrew one grievance on a without prejudice basis.

The parties agreed to adjourn the scheduled hearing date and to hear the remaining grievance, along with two other grievances filed by the grievor, on a future date pursuant to the expedited procedure in Article 22.16 of the Collective Agreement.

The union filed grievances on behalf of two employees regarding the application of a lump sum payment provision in the collective agreement.

One grievor retired before the qualifying date of January 1, 2016, and the other was on maternity leave during the calculation period, receiving EI but no employer pay.

The arbitrator dismissed both grievances, finding the retired employee did not meet the clear membership date requirement.

For the employee on maternity leave, the arbitrator accepted the employer's interpretation that the payment was calculated only on base salary earnings paid by the employer, and found no Code-based discrimination.

The grievor challenged the Employer's calculation of her continuous service date and severance credit date, arguing that a four-month unpaid leave of absence in 2010 should have been paid and counted as service due to alleged discriminatory treatment by her manager.

The Employer argued the grievance was untimely.

The Arbitrator agreed with the Employer, finding the delay of over ten years to be extreme and that there was no proper basis to extend the time limits.

The grievance was dismissed.

The Union filed multiple grievances alleging that the Employer failed to manage a difficult employee in the Bailiff Department.

The Union argued that the Employer should not have reinstated the employee to the department and that it failed to adequately address his harassing and discriminatory conduct, thereby creating a poisoned work environment.

The Arbitrator dismissed the grievances, finding that the Employer's decision to return the employee to his home position was a reasonable exercise of management rights and did not violate health and safety obligations.

The Arbitrator also concluded that the Employer acted reasonably in responding to complaints about the employee's conduct and complied with its duty to provide a workplace free from harassment and discrimination.