Ken Petryshen

The grievor, a correctional officer with asthma, filed grievances alleging the Employer failed to accommodate his disability by exposing him to second-hand cigarette smoke at the Toronto East Detention Centre.

Despite the implementation of smoking policies, the grievor was frequently exposed to smoke due to poor enforcement and assignments that required him to enter inmate living areas.

The arbitrator found that the grievor's asthma constituted a handicap under the Human Rights Code and that the Employer failed to demonstrate it had accommodated him to the point of undue hardship.

The grievances were allowed, and the Employer was directed to renew accommodation efforts and compensate the grievor for lost time caused by smoke exposure.

The union grieved the discipline of several employees for inappropriate use of email and computer equipment.

On the first day of the hearing, the parties discussed production and procedural issues.

The Vice-Chairperson ordered the Ministry to produce investigation reports and related documents concerning non-bargaining unit employees in connection with internet or email abuse.

The grievor, an Examination/Administrative Clerk with 23 years of service, was terminated for allegedly soliciting $1,000 from a candidate in exchange for a passing grade on a trade certification exam.

The union grieved the termination, arguing the employer failed to establish just cause with clear and cogent evidence.

The arbitrator found the candidate's testimony credible and the grievor's denials unconvincing.

Concluding that the grievor compromised the integrity of the examination process and committed a serious breach of trust, the arbitrator upheld the discharge and dismissed the grievance.

The Union filed six grievances concerning the interpretation of Article COR6.1.3 of the Correctional Bargaining Unit Collective Agreement, which provides an $8.00 premium for weekend shifts.

The Union argued that 'shift' meant any continuous period of work, while the Employer argued it meant a regularly scheduled shift.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that 'shift' refers to a regularly scheduled shift, meaning ad hoc overtime or partial shifts do not qualify for the premium unless they constitute a full regularly scheduled shift.

The Board also held that Article COR6.4, which disentitles employees to premiums for mutually agreed shift changes, applies to voluntary shift exchanges between employees but does not apply to Employer-assigned overtime.

The union filed grievances on behalf of several employees who were inadvertently bypassed for overtime opportunities.

The employer conceded the collective agreement was breached but argued the appropriate remedy was an in-kind offer of future overtime rather than monetary damages.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that an in-kind remedy was inappropriate because the missed overtime was assigned to casual employees outside the full-time group entitled to it, and offering future overtime to the grievors would negatively affect the rights of other employees on the rotational list.

The grievances were allowed and the employer was directed to compensate the grievors for their monetary losses.

During the hearing of grievances regarding the Employer's alleged failure to accommodate the Grievor's asthma and sensitivity to second-hand smoke, the Employer brought a motion requesting that the Grievor be directed to participate in a further independent medical assessment regarding his sensitivity to dust.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the motion, finding that the Grievor had not requested accommodation for dust sensitivity, had not been absent due to dust exposure, and that the issue of dust sensitivity was not relevant to the grievances before the Board.

The grievor filed a grievance claiming the Employer contravened the Collective Agreement regarding his placement in the Tax Auditor 4 series.

At the hearing, the Union advised the Board that it agreed with the Employer's interpretation of the relevant provisions.

As the jurisprudence establishes that the Board only has jurisdiction to deal with disputes between the parties (the Union and the Employer), and there was no dispute between them, the Board found it lacked jurisdiction to deal with the grievance.

The grievance was dismissed.

In a discharge grievance involving allegations that the grievor improperly obtained air miles, the Union sought disclosure of the Employer's cost per reward mile.

The Employer and a third party, Loyalty Management Group Canada Inc., argued the information was highly confidential.

The Vice Chair directed the Employer to disclose the information to the Union, subject to a condition that it only be used for the arbitration proceeding.

The third party subsequently requested that the Union and grievor be required to execute a formal Undertaking with a liquidated damages clause.

The Vice Chair dismissed the third party's request, finding that the previous direction was sufficient to protect the confidential information and consistent with the Board's general approach.

In a pre-hearing conference call regarding an employee's discharge for allegedly obtaining air miles on customer purchases, the Union requested the Employer to disclose its cost for an air mile.

The Employer argued the information was confidential and irrelevant.

The Grievance Settlement Board found the information arguably relevant and ordered its disclosure, subject to the condition that it only be used for the proceeding.

The Union filed a grievance alleging the Employer contravened the Collective Agreement by failing to comply with the Enhanced Accountability Framework (EAF), a memorandum of agreement regarding employment equity.

The Employer argued the EAF was no longer in effect following the repeal of the Employment Equity Act and notice given during bargaining.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the Employer provided clear and timely notice during 1995 bargaining that the EAF was nullified, which brought the estoppel enforcing the agreement to an end.

The union filed a grievance alleging that the employer violated the collective agreement by failing to fulfill its obligations concerning the Senior Persons Committee (SPC), which was tasked with making recommendations to improve the Joint System Subcommittee (JSSC) for classification disputes.

The parties agreed on many recommendations but reached an impasse over retroactivity and arbitrability.

The employer took the position that it would not agree to any recommendations unless the union accepted its proposals on those two issues.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that while the employer was not required to agree to specific proposals, its insistence on a position that would result in no recommendations being made violated its obligation under the collective agreement to make recommendations to improve the JSSC.

The grievance was allowed and the employer was directed to cease and desist from its position.

The responding party filed a second request for reconsideration of a Board decision that found a sale of a business and related employer status between Volta Electrical Contractors Ltd. and Urban Electrical Contractors.

The second request raised the issue of whether the Vice-Chair who participated in the original decision should deal with the reconsideration request.

The Vice-Chair concluded that, given the unusual circumstances, it was appropriate for the matter to be dealt with at a hearing by a current Vice-Chair and directed the Registrar to set the matter down for a hearing.

Following a prior decision that the employer contravened the collective agreement by failing to pay a 2% benefit to unclassified employees, the union sought retroactive payment for both grievors and non-grievors beyond the standard 30-day period prior to the grievance filings.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that it lacked jurisdiction to expand the scope of the union grievance to cover non-grievors outside the specified location.

The Board further found no inequitable conduct by the employer that would warrant an exception to the usual rule limiting retroactivity to 30 days prior to the filing of the grievances.

The grievor filed a classification grievance in 1992, which was referred to the Classification Rating Committee (CRC).

Before the CRC could hear the grievance, legislative amendments abolished the CRC and eliminated the right to grieve classification issues.

The grievor requested that the Public Service Grievance Board (PSGB) hear the grievance.

The PSGB held that it lacked jurisdiction, as it was never granted the authority to hear classification grievances, and the abolition of the CRC did not transfer such jurisdiction to the PSGB.

The grievor, employed under a series of unclassified contracts, claimed the employer contravened the collective agreement by failing to convert his position to a classified one.

The employer did not renew his contract because the project he was working on was winding down.

The union conceded that the ministry had not determined there was a continuing need for the work, which is a condition for conversion.

The parties agreed the Grievance Settlement Board had no jurisdiction to hear the grievance, and it was dismissed.

The IBEW filed applications alleging unfair labour practices, seeking a sale of business and related employer declaration, and referring a grievance to arbitration against GDC, GFP, Wabi, and Unicorn.

The Board found that Minutes of Settlement previously entered into by GDC created a binding obligation to sign the IBEW Principal Agreement, allowing the section 96(7) complaint.

However, the Board dismissed the remaining applications, finding that GDC's decision to cease operating as a general contractor was due to financial difficulties, not anti-union animus.

The Board also found no sale of a business to the other entities and declined to make a related employer declaration, as there was no common control and it would inappropriately extend bargaining rights.

The Union brought a motion requesting a direction that the Employer forthwith pay a 2% benefit to unclassified employees, as ordered in a prior arbitration decision.

The Employer had paid the benefit in four Ministries but faced administrative difficulties in two others, though it agreed to pay all entitled employees with interest.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the motion for a forthwith direction, finding it inappropriate given the Employer's administrative challenges and commitment to pay.

The Board directed the Employer to appear and explain any failure to meet its obligations if the administrative issues were not resolved by June 2000.

The responding party, Urban Electrical Contractors, requested reconsideration of a Board decision finding a sale of a business from Volta Electrical Contractors Ltd. to Urban and declaring them one employer.

Urban argued the Board erred factually and legally, and that a subsequent certification vote against the union and delay in rendering the decision prejudiced Urban.

The Board dismissed the reconsideration request, finding Urban was attempting to re-argue the case, the certification vote was irrelevant to the sale of business application, and any prejudice from delay was due to Urban's unreasonable belief that the representation issue was over.

The applicant applied under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 to terminate the responding party union's bargaining rights.

A representation vote resulted in a tie, with one segregated ballot ultimately ruled eligible.

The applicant and intervenor employer requested that the single ballot be counted, while the union requested a new vote.

The Board directed that a new representation vote be taken to preserve the secrecy of the ballot.

The applicant employer brought an application under section 91 of the Labour Relations Act to resolve a jurisdictional dispute regarding the assignment of instrumentation work.

Historically, pneumatic instrumentation was assigned to the I.A.M. and electronic instrumentation to the I.B.E.W. Due to technological changes, the employer assigned pneumatic work to the I.B.E.W. to improve efficiency, which the I.A.M. grieved.

The Board found it had jurisdiction to hear the application and concluded that the existing demarcation line was irrational.

The Board ordered that jurisdiction over pneumatic instrumentation be shared on an interim basis.