Ken Petryshen

During the cross-examination of a manager in a discipline grievance proceeding, the union requested the production of various documents, including occurrence reports, conversation notes, and phone records.

The employer opposed many of the requests, arguing they were late and overly broad.

The arbitrator directed the production of documents that were arguably relevant to the central issues in dispute, such as specific conversation notes and occurrence reports, but denied requests for phone records and logbooks that pertained to collateral issues.

During the hearing of discipline grievances, the Union made approximately 25 disclosure requests relating to the cross-examination of an Employer witness.

The Arbitrator ruled on the requests, denying several as irrelevant or constituting a fishing expedition, such as requests for draft disciplinary letters and phone records sought merely to test credibility on collateral matters.

The Arbitrator ordered the production of the witness's investigative training records and certain written requests for occurrence reports, if they existed.

The union filed a grievance claiming the employer violated the collective agreement by failing to convert the grievor to full-time status.

The grievor was a fixed-term employee replacing a regular employee on an authorized leave of absence.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that the collective agreement explicitly excepted employees replacing regular employees on authorized leaves of absence from the conversion provision.

The union sought further production of documents from the employer regarding the 'computer wipeout' issue, specifically written instructions and contracts governing the computer refreshing procedure at Maplehurst and the Bailiff operations in 2016 and 2017.

The arbitrator directed the employer to produce the requested documents within 30 days, permitting redactions for sensitive or confidential information.

During an ongoing arbitration of discipline grievances, the Employer disclosed that the bailiff computers subject to an agreed audit had been 'refreshed', potentially permanently losing the data.

The Union submitted a list of questions regarding this 'computer wipeout'.

The Arbitrator directed the Employer to respond to the Union's questions in writing by a specified date.

During a hearing for discipline grievances, the Union produced an audio recording of a fact-finding meeting after the Employer's witness had completed her examination-in-chief but before cross-examination.

The Employer requested to reopen the examination-in-chief and prepare the witness using the recording.

On consent of the Union, the Arbitrator directed that Employer counsel could play the recording for the witness and prepare her for the continuation of her examination-in-chief, consistent with the Law Society's Rules of Professional Conduct regarding communication with witnesses.

In an ongoing arbitration, the Union produced redacted notes, claiming privilege over the redacted portions.

The Employer sought production of the unredacted notes to challenge the privilege claim.

As a first step, the Arbitrator directed the Union to produce the unredacted notes to Employer counsel only, to allow counsel to review the redacted parts and determine whether a dispute over privilege was necessary.

The Employer brought a motion to adjourn scheduled hearing dates on the basis that the grievor had provided a medical certificate stating he was unable to work due to severe work-related stress.

The Employer argued that if the grievor could not attend work, he could not endure the stress of a hearing.

The Union provided a subsequent medical certificate confirming the grievor was capable of attending the hearings despite being unable to perform his official duties.

The Arbitrator dismissed the adjournment request, finding the updated medical certificate provided an adequate basis to conclude the grievor was medically fit to attend the hearings.

In a grievance arbitration concerning a 20-day suspension and subsequent termination, the arbitrator ruled on outstanding document production requests from both the union and the employer.

The employer was ordered to produce cell phone records, daily time sheets, and a photograph, while the union was ordered to produce an unredacted letter, original screen shots, notes, and original audio files.

Both parties were directed to comply by September 6, 2017.

The Union filed grievances challenging the Employer's decision to withhold pay and impose discipline on correctional officers who engaged in a work refusal at the Hamilton-Wentworth Detention Centre.

The work refusal was triggered by a missing metal electrical cover plate, which the officers feared could be weaponized.

The officers refused to work unless they were permitted to wear protective vests and a Level 2 search of the entire institution was conducted.

The Ministry of Labour determined that the officers did not have the right to refuse work under section 43 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The Arbitrator agreed, finding that the danger of homemade weapons is inherent in a correctional officer's work and that the Employer's search protocol and vest policy were normal conditions of employment.

The Arbitrator also dismissed the Union's claims that the Employer's actions constituted a reprisal or a lock-out, concluding that the Employer was justified in withholding pay and imposing discipline for the unlawful work refusal.

The Union requested interim orders imposing terms and conditions on the grievor's return to work following the Employer's decision to rescind his termination and reinstate him to the Bailiff Department.

The Union alleged a poisoned work environment and sought protections against further harassment and discrimination.

The Arbitrator dismissed the request, finding it inappropriate to assume the truth of the contested allegations at this stage of the proceeding and concluding that any concerns could be adequately addressed at the end of the proceeding or through new grievances.

During a grievance arbitration concerning multiple discipline grievances, a procedural issue arose regarding the disclosure of an audio recording made by the grievor during a meeting.

The arbitrator directed the union to produce the recording to the employer's counsel forthwith, subject to strict conditions limiting its further disclosure to specific employer representatives for the purpose of seeking instructions.

In a grievance arbitration concerning multiple suspensions and the termination of the grievor's employment, the parties disputed the production of various documents.

The Vice-Chair of the Grievance Settlement Board reviewed the outstanding disclosure requests, applying the test of arguable relevance.

The Board issued directions ordering the production of certain occurrence reports, emails, and performance appraisals, while confirming that other requested documents either did not exist or were not arguably relevant to the issues in dispute.

The Union requested an order for the production of documents in relation to a grievance filed by a correctional officer.

The Employer did not oppose the request.

The Grievance Settlement Board directed the Employer to produce the requested documents by a specified date.

During a conference call regarding outstanding production issues in a series of discipline and termination grievances, the Vice-Chair canvassed the parties on scheduling additional hearing dates and engaging in further settlement discussions.

After speaking with counsel separately, the Vice-Chair determined that sufficient movement had occurred to warrant further mediation.

The Vice-Chair directed that previously scheduled hearing dates be converted to mediation days and scheduled additional hearing dates for 2018.

Following a prior decision reinstating the grievor, a correctional officer discharged for using excessive force, the union challenged the employer's decision to assign him to a receptionist position.

The arbitrator held that the receptionist position was not substantially equivalent to a correctional officer position due to differences in duties, skill, responsibility, and pay structure.

The arbitrator further held that he lacked the statutory authority under section 7(4) of the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act to direct the grievor's assignment to a Control position, as that role involves direct responsibility for inmates.

The issue of whether a Front Door post was substantially equivalent was remitted to the parties.

The grievor, a correctional officer with a workplace accommodation for a sinus condition sensitive to second-hand smoke, engaged in a work refusal after being assigned to a unit where she believed she would be exposed to smoke.

Due to severe operational pressures and labour unrest at the facility, the Employer failed to investigate her work refusal during her shift.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that while the Employer's failure to investigate was unreasonable and contravened section 43(3) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, there was no evidence of bad faith, harassment, or reprisal.

The Board granted declaratory relief but denied the Union's request for damages.

The Employer brought a motion arguing that the union's grievance regarding a letter of reprimand was inarbitrable due to a 13-month delay in referring it to arbitration.

The Union argued the Employer waived its right to object and requested an extension of time limits under section 48(16) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Grievance Settlement Board found no waiver, as the Employer had raised the timeliness objection well before mediation.

Applying the relevant factors, the Board declined to extend the time limit, noting the grievance's low level of seriousness and the lack of a satisfactory explanation for the extreme delay.

The Employer's motion was granted and the grievance was deemed withdrawn.

The Union and two individual grievors filed grievances relating to the transcription of police interviews, which had been assigned to a private transcription service.

In an interim decision to move the matters forward, the Vice-Chair directed the grievors to complete and submit Conflict of Interest determination requests regarding the work in question.

The direction was made without prejudice to the parties' positions on any issue, including whether a conflict of interest existed or its relevance.

The matter was adjourned pending the determination.

The Union requested an adjournment of a scheduled grievance hearing because the grievor, who resides in Manitoba, lacked the funds to travel to Toronto and had recently suffered injuries from a fall making her medically unfit to travel.

The Employer opposed the adjournment.

The Vice-Chair granted the adjournment, finding that the medical reason justified the request, without needing to decide if the financial reason alone would have been sufficient.