Ken Petryshen

The Union sought an order for the production of documents relating to complaints, discipline, and investigations concerning a specific employee's conduct and an allegedly poisoned work environment.

The Arbitrator ordered the Employer to produce the requested documents, subject to privilege, and imposed conditions on the Union's counsel regarding the use and destruction of documents containing personal information.

During a grievance arbitration hearing held by videoconference, an individual requested intervener status but left the meeting before the issue could be addressed.

The Arbitrator issued directions requiring the individual to confirm his intention to seek intervener status and setting a schedule for the parties to provide their positions and written submissions on the request prior to the next hearing date.

The grievor, a Correctional Officer, was terminated for multiple instances of misconduct, including time theft, failing to disclose a criminal charge, and failing to cooperate with a Ministry of Correctional Services Act Section 22 investigation.

The Union grieved the termination, arguing the investigations were discriminatory and the penalty excessive.

The Arbitrator found that the Employer established just cause for discipline on several serious allegations, particularly the time theft, failure to disclose the criminal charge, and failure to cooperate with the investigation.

The Arbitrator concluded that the grievor's dishonest behaviour constituted a breach of trust that irreparably damaged the employment relationship, and dismissed the grievance.

The parties agreed to a procedure for addressing outstanding grievances regarding entitlement to the Custodial Responsibility Allowance (CRA) for various positions.

The arbitrator set a schedule for the exchange of written submissions based on the union's filed particulars.

In a grievance arbitration concerning multiple suspensions and a discharge of a Bailiff, the Union brought a non-suit motion after the Employer presented its evidence over forty hearing days.

The Arbitrator reviewed the legal principles applicable to non-suit motions, noting that the standard is whether there is some credible evidence to support a prima facie case, not proof on a balance of probabilities.

Finding that the Employer's evidence met this minimum threshold, the Arbitrator dismissed the Union's non-suit motion.

The Union brought a motion alleging that the Employer's failure to preserve data on three bailiff computers, which were wiped during a routine refresh, constituted an abuse of process and prevented the grievor from obtaining a fair hearing.

The Union sought to have the grievor's four discipline grievances allowed as a remedy.

The Arbitrator dismissed the motion, finding that the data loss was inadvertent and not the result of deliberate or negligent conduct by the Employer.

Furthermore, given the extensive oral and documentary evidence already presented, the Arbitrator concluded that the grievor's right to a fair hearing had not been compromised.

The Union filed grievances alleging that the Employer violated the Unified and Correctional Collective Agreements in its method of resuming salary progression after a two-year freeze.

The Union argued that employees should immediately recover the steps they missed during the freeze.

The Employer maintained that employees should simply resume progression from their current step on their anniversary date.

The Arbitrator dismissed the grievances, finding no language in the collective agreements to support the Union's position that employees were entitled to immediately recover suspended steps, and held that the Employer's approach was consistent with the nature of a salary progression freeze.

In a grievance alleging failure to accommodate, the employer brought a motion for the production of the clinical notes of the grievor's treating medical professionals.

The union opposed the request, arguing the notes were not relevant and the request was overly broad.

The arbitrator granted the employer's motion, finding that by relying on the medical reports, the union opened the door to the production of the underlying clinical notes.

The arbitrator ordered the production of the relevant clinical notes subject to strict confidentiality conditions.

The Union sought a remedy after the Employer failed to pay a $500 damages award within the 60-day timeframe directed in a previous decision.

The Employer conceded the breach but argued damages were not appropriate.

The Arbitrator found that while the breach was not due to bad faith, the Employer had a history of missing payment deadlines and the grievor suffered frustration and delay.

The Arbitrator declared the Employer breached the direction and ordered the Employer to pay $100 in damages.

The union filed a grievance alleging the employer failed to make reasonable provisions for the grievor's health and safety and failed to accommodate her disability.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the health and safety aspect of the grievance as untimely, arguing it was filed over a year after the grievor's last day of work.

The union argued the employer waived its right to object to the timeliness.

The arbitrator dismissed the employer's motion, finding that the procedural defect was clear on the face of the grievance, yet the employer participated in mediation and scheduling of hearing dates for months before raising the objection.

These actions constituted fresh steps, resulting in a waiver of the procedural defect.

The Union filed grievances alleging that the Employer violated the collective agreement by failing to post Cleaner 2 positions at the Toronto East Detention Centre and by using an external contractor to perform cleaning work.

The arbitrator found that cleaning work at the facility had historically been performed by inmates, not bargaining unit members, meaning the work was not exclusive to the bargaining unit.

Furthermore, the minor amount of cleaning work performed by the external contractor was captured by the de minimis principle.

The grievances were dismissed.

The union filed a grievance alleging discrimination and failure to accommodate when the grievor was denied an acting manager position.

The employer brought a motion to strike paragraphs of the particulars relating to this competition, arguing the arbitrator lacked jurisdiction because the position was outside the bargaining unit.

The arbitrator agreed, finding that the collective agreement's grievance procedure and discrimination protections only apply to matters covered by the agreement.

The motion to strike was granted.

The parties agreed to adjourn a scheduled mediation at the Union's request.

To ensure a productive rescheduled mediation, the Arbitrator directed the Union to prepare and provide to Employer counsel a written outline of its position on the monetary value of any outstanding remedy for both grievances, along with the rationale for its position, by a specified date.

The union filed a grievance alleging that the employer breached a Memorandum of Settlement executed by the parties.

The employer conceded the breach, but the parties could not agree on a remedy.

The arbitrator directed the employer to amend its records to reflect that the grievor resigned his employment and ordered the employer to pay $500 in damages for the breach.

The Union brought a motion seeking an order to allow a forensic expert to access the Employer's electronically stored information (ESI).

The Union sought to forensically examine 65 documents and investigate the wiping of data from three computers during a scheduled refresh.

The Employer opposed the motion, arguing the Grievance Settlement Board lacked jurisdiction to grant such an order and that the request was a fishing expedition.

The Arbitrator dismissed the motion, applying the principle of proportionality.

The Arbitrator found that the Union's request was based on speculation and that the significant cost and delay of a forensic study outweighed any likely probative value.

The Union brought a motion to consolidate two sets of grievances: one challenging the employer's installation of hidden video cameras, and another challenging the subsequent paid suspension of the local union president.

The Union argued both sets of grievances were connected by allegations of anti-union animus and arose from the same sequence of events.

The Grievance Settlement Board granted the motion, finding sufficient overlap in the factual circumstances and legal issues to justify consolidation for a more efficient hearing process.

The arbitrator issued a procedural direction requiring the Union and the Employer to prepare and exchange written outlines of their positions on the monetary value of any outstanding remedy, along with their rationale, prior to a scheduled mediation concerning grievances over compressed work agreement scheduling obligations.

The union filed a grievance alleging workplace harassment and discrimination on behalf of the grievor.

The employer brought a motion to strike two particulars from the grievance, arguing they related to events that occurred six and nine years prior to the grievance and involved a different manager.

The arbitrator applied the Grievance Settlement Board's three-year guideline for harassment and discrimination grievances, finding no exceptional circumstances to warrant a departure from the rule.

The employer's motion was granted, and the union was precluded from calling evidence on the dated particulars.

The Employer brought a motion to dismiss the union's grievance, arguing it was a classification grievance over which the Grievance Settlement Board lacks jurisdiction.

The arbitrator agreed, noting that section 52(1) of the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act and article 22.12 of the Collective Agreement explicitly exclude classification grievances from the Board's jurisdiction.

The grievance was dismissed.

The Union filed grievances alleging the Employer breached a compressed work week agreement by failing to schedule 147 classified Correctional Officers to specific positions and failing to backfill those specific positions on a daily basis.

The Arbitrator found that previous decisions had already determined the issue, concluding that while the Employer must schedule 147 classified COs daily and backfill absences, the agreement does not restrict the Employer's inherent right to assign work or require backfilling when a CO is reassigned to other duties.