Ken Petryshen

In a grievance claiming entitlement to the Custodial Responsibility Allowance, the Union requested production of the grievor's personnel file and pay stubs.

The Employer agreed to produce the personnel file but opposed producing the pay stubs.

The Arbitrator denied the Union's request for the pay stubs, finding that the primary factual issues concerned the grievor's position and duties, making his actual pay irrelevant.

The request for pay stubs from a previous position was also denied as being beyond the scope of the grievance.

The employer brought a motion to dismiss the grievor's termination grievance due to her failure to attend scheduled hearings and her lack of communication with the union.

The grievor had been terminated for job abandonment after failing to return to work or provide medical information.

Despite numerous attempts by the union to contact her and a previous board order directing her to explain her non-attendance, the grievor did not respond or appear.

The arbitrator found that the grievor's conduct demonstrated a lack of interest in pursuing the grievance and that further delay would prejudice the employer.

The motion was granted and the grievance was dismissed.

The grievor, a permanent employee, was granted an unpaid educational leave of absence to pursue a Master's degree and subsequently a PhD.

After multiple extensions spanning over seven years, the Employer denied her request for a further one-year extension, citing the detrimental impact her prolonged absence was having on the workplace, including costs and morale issues related to backfilling her position with fixed-term employees.

The grievor was directed to return to work but failed to do so.

The Employer subsequently declared that she had abandoned her position and terminated her employment pursuant to section 42 of the Public Service of Ontario Act.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievances, finding that the Employer's decision to deny the extension was a reasonable exercise of managerial discretion made in good faith, and that the criteria for job abandonment under the Act were met.

The Employer brought a motion arguing that some of the Union's particulars did not make out a prima facie case.

The grievances related to the negotiation of a new Compressed Work Week Agreement and alleged anti-union animus, health and safety violations, and reprisals.

The Arbitrator assumed the facts in the particulars to be true and concluded they were sufficient to substantiate the alleged violations.

The Employer's motion was dismissed without detailed reasons, in accordance with the Board's practice.

The Employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss two grievances for being untimely, to dismiss the human rights discrimination claim in a third grievance for failing to establish a prima facie case, and to strike certain particulars.

The Arbitrator found that the two grievances were filed at least three months beyond the mandatory 30-day time limit and declined to extend the time limits under the Labour Relations Act due to the lack of a satisfactory explanation for the delay.

The Arbitrator also dismissed the discrimination claim, finding no evidence that the Employer knew or perceived the grievor to have a disability prior to the grievance.

Finally, the Arbitrator struck a paragraph from the particulars that relied on statements made during a stage 2 grievance meeting, applying grievance procedure privilege.

The grievor, a Court Services Officer, alleged that his manager bullied, harassed, and discriminated against him on the basis of race, seeking $5 million in damages.

The union relied on four events: a dispute over uniform measurements, a weekend phone call checking on his well-being after a local shooting, the confiscation of a master key, and a disagreement over taking a lunch break.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding no evidence of racial discrimination.

The arbitrator concluded that the manager's actions were carried out in good faith, were within the bounds of reasonable management conduct, and did not constitute vexatious conduct or an abuse of power.

In a grievance arbitration before the Grievance Settlement Board, the employer requested an order directing the union to provide particulars for three grievances, including one the union sought to consolidate.

The arbitrator found the request warranted and ordered the union to file full particulars by a specified date.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued case management directions regarding 34 grievances filed by employees at the Ministry's Windsor office.

The Union was directed to file particulars and detail its disclosure request by December 1, 2021.

The Employer was directed to respond to the disclosure request and indicate any preliminary issues by January 17, 2022, ahead of the next hearing date.

During a mediation, a production issue arose regarding a Workplace Discrimination and Harassment Prevention (WDHP) report involving the grievor.

The Arbitrator directed the Employer to produce the relevant WDHP report to the Union.

The Grievance Settlement Board determined the compensation owed to correctional officers for the employer's breach of a compressed work week agreement that required maintaining a minimum staffing level.

The Board calculated the shortfall in hours over a 155-week period using representative weeks, determining a 2-hour weekly shortfall.

Compensation was awarded based on the average hourly rate, with half the hours paid at the overtime rate, subject to a 15% discount for occasions when the overtime list was exhausted.

The union filed a grievance alleging the employer contravened a Compressed Work Week Agreement by falling below the minimum staffing level of 158 classified correctional officer positions on statutory holidays.

The union argued that a separate pilot project agreement should increase the base positions to 165, but the arbitrator rejected this based on the clear wording of the agreement.

The arbitrator found a total shortfall of 35 hours for 2014 and 2015.

Compensation was awarded at double the second-highest regular hourly rate, totaling $2,221.10.

The Union filed a grievance on behalf of an employee whose employment was declared abandoned under section 42 of the Public Service of Ontario Act, 2006.

The grievor failed to appear at videoconference hearings before the Grievance Settlement Board on March 25 and May 7, 2021.

The Employer requested that the grievance be dismissed.

The Arbitrator declined to dismiss the grievance immediately, instead directing the grievor to provide a written explanation for her non-appearance and failure to provide notice.

The Employer reserved the right to bring a motion to dismiss if the explanation was insufficient or not provided.

The union filed grievances alleging the employer failed to prevent a poisoned work environment by not addressing harassing and bullying conduct and by reinstating the alleged harasser.

At the close of the union's case, the employer brought a non-suit motion seeking to dismiss the grievances.

The arbitrator applied the standard of a prima facie case and found that there was some evidence to support the claim.

The employer's non-suit motion was dismissed.

The union filed a complaint alleging that the employer failed to comply with a memorandum of settlement by not providing the grievor with agreed-upon training courses and meaningful job shadowing opportunities.

The arbitrator found that the employer did not prevent the grievor from taking the courses and that the job shadowing provided met the obligations under the settlement.

The complaint was dismissed.

The Union filed grievances on behalf of the grievor regarding the termination of her employment.

In a procedural order to facilitate the production process, the Arbitrator directed the Employer to disclose the investigation report and all arguably relevant documents related to the termination.

The Union filed grievances challenging the Employer's calculation of a 1.4% lump sum payment for employees on approved leaves of absence.

The Employer brought a preliminary motion arguing the Union failed to establish a prima facie case, asserting the collective agreement clearly excluded third-party payments (like EI or WSIB) from the calculation.

The Union argued the language included all payments for approved leaves and that excluding third-party payments created an adverse impact based on prohibited grounds under the Human Rights Code.

The Arbitrator dismissed the Employer's motion, finding the Union's Human Rights Code theory was reasonable and capable of supporting a violation if the particulars were proven true.

The Union filed grievances alleging the Employer failed to reasonably accommodate a Correctional Officer with asthma and sensitivity to cigarette smoke, and breached a prior agreement regarding his General Duty Officer (GDO) assignments.

The Arbitrator found that while the Employer's enforcement of the smoking policy did not amount to a failure to accommodate during the relevant period due to a lack of actual exposures, the Employer did breach the GDO Agreement and the Human Rights Code by assigning the grievor fewer and a more limited range of duties compared to other GDOs.

The Employer's discriminatory treatment caused the grievor significant psychological harm, including PTSD.

The Arbitrator awarded $3,000 for breach of the agreement, $25,000 in general damages, and $20,000 for mental anguish.

In the context of nine discipline grievances filed on behalf of five Youth Services Officers, the Arbitrator issued a procedural direction regarding the production of documents, videos, and photographs by the Employer.

The direction imposed strict confidentiality conditions, prohibiting dissemination or use outside the arbitration process, and restricting copying and retention of the materials.

The union appealed the denial of Long Term Disability Benefits for the grievor's any-occupation period beginning July 15, 2015.

Following a hearing, the arbitrator directed that the claimant receive LTIP any-occupation benefits from July 15, 2015, to December 14, 2020.

The insurer was directed to continue administering the claim in accordance with the collective agreement, and the claimant retained the right to appeal any future denial.

The Union filed grievances alleging the Employer failed to adequately address complaints about the conduct of a Provincial Bailiff, Mr. Pacheco, which allegedly contributed to a poisoned work environment.

Mr. Pacheco sought intervenor status as a third party to defend his reputation.

The Arbitrator denied the request, finding that the proceeding focused solely on the Employer's response to the complaints, not the validity of the allegations against Mr. Pacheco.

Therefore, Mr. Pacheco had no direct interest or important stake in the outcome that would justify third-party standing.