Ken Petryshen

The grievor refused to sign a mandatory confidentiality agreement related to a Design-Build project, arguing it exceeded management's authority and conflicted with existing legislation.

He was subsequently removed from the project.

The Union filed a grievance alleging a breach of management rights and, on the eve of the hearing, raised a claim of unjust discipline.

The Employer brought preliminary motions arguing improper expansion of the grievance and failure to disclose a prima facie case.

The Grievance Settlement Board allowed both motions, finding the unjust discipline claim was a distinct issue not inherent to the original grievance, and that the Employer's requirement to sign the confidentiality agreement did not violate the collective agreement or conflict with statutory obligations.

Two correctional officers grieved discipline imposed following a use of force incident involving an inmate.

One officer was discharged for punching a handcuffed inmate in the head and failing to report it, while the other received a 20-day suspension for allegedly witnessing the punch and failing to report it.

The arbitrator allowed the suspended officer's grievance, finding the employer failed to prove he actually saw the punch.

For the discharged officer, the arbitrator found the use of force was excessive and unjustified, but substituted a lengthy suspension without compensation in place of discharge, citing the officer's 28 years of service, clean disciplinary record, admission of wrongdoing, and genuine remorse.

The grievor, a registered nurse at a correctional facility, filed grievances alleging harassment, bullying, and discrimination by management, and claimed her resignation was forced under duress.

The employer argued she voluntarily resigned after being implicated in an inmate's suicide and facing potential termination and a report to the College of Nurses of Ontario.

The Grievance Settlement Board determined that the grievor had the opportunity to consider her options with union representation and exercised independent judgment.

The Board concluded the resignation was voluntary and denied the union's request for reinstatement.

The grievor filed four grievances alleging contraventions of the collective agreement regarding shift schedule postings, overtime distribution, and paid holiday work assignments.

The arbitrator found that the 15-day posting requirement was based on calendar days, dismissing one posting grievance but allowing another where the deadline was missed by two days.

The overtime distribution grievance was dismissed as the employer's assignment of Saturday shifts was found to be fair and equitable.

The paid holiday grievance was also dismissed, as employees do not have a right to work a paid holiday and the employer may assign whomever it wishes.

The grievor, a Real Estate Officer, challenged a letter of reprimand and a 10-day suspension.

The reprimand was issued after a member of the public observed the grievor sleeping in a government vehicle for an extended period while claiming overtime.

The suspension was issued for dishonesty and insubordination during an investigation into a potential conflict of interest involving the grievor's sole proprietorship.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the employer had just cause for both disciplinary actions, as the grievor had claimed hours not worked, intentionally misled the employer during the conflict of interest investigation, and failed to comply with reasonable requests for information.

The grievances were dismissed.

The union filed grievances alleging the employer contravened the collective agreement by changing its policy to prohibit Tobacco and Raw Leaf Inspectors from taking Ministry vehicles home.

The employer brought a motion to dismiss for no prima facie case.

The Grievance Settlement Board granted the motion in part.

The Board dismissed the union's promissory estoppel claim because the vehicle practice and pre-employment representations had no link to any right in the collective agreement.

However, the Board dismissed the employer's motion regarding the reprisal claim, finding the union pleaded sufficient facts to establish a prima facie case that the policy change was a reprisal for the inspectors exercising their rights to file health and safety grievances.

The grievor claimed the Employer contravened the Collective Agreement by failing to fill a permanent Desk Auditor position posted on March 7, 2014, using an eligibility list created from a previous competition.

The Employer argued the eligibility list had expired by the time authorization was obtained to fill the position following the targeted direct assignment process.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding the Employer's position had considerable merit and noting that, given the grievor's ranking on the list, she would not have been selected even if the list had been used.

During an arbitration regarding a health and safety work refusal, the employer requested an adjournment of a scheduled hearing date.

The employer argued it did not have sufficient time to prepare for cross-examination because it received the union witness's 32-page will-say statement only the day before the hearing.

The Vice-Chair granted the adjournment, finding it would be unfair to compel the employer to proceed with cross-examination under the circumstances.

The union filed grievances alleging the employer contravened the collective agreement by declaring Team Lead positions surplus and laying off the incumbents, while simultaneously creating a new Payroll/Benefits Production Analyst position.

The union argued the two positions were essentially the same and the employer acted in bad faith to circumvent seniority rights.

The arbitrator found that the new position required a greater knowledge base and higher skill level, and was therefore a significantly different job.

The arbitrator concluded the employer acted reasonably and in good faith for legitimate business purposes when reorganizing the branch to improve efficiency.

The grievances were dismissed.

The union filed grievances on behalf of two employees regarding the employer's failure to provide a scent-free work environment and an alleged breach of privacy during a meeting about a scent complaint.

The parties resolved most issues but the union sought damages for the delay in addressing the scent issues and for the privacy breach.

The Grievance Settlement Board denied the request for damages, finding that the employer and the Joint Health and Safety Committee had engaged in good faith efforts to address the complex scent issues, and that the alleged privacy breach was on the lower end of the scale and occurred during a good faith effort to resolve a complaint.

The Union filed policy grievances alleging the Employer contravened the Collective Agreement by assigning bargaining unit work previously performed by Court Services Representatives at Family Law Information Centres to Information and Referral Coordinators supplied by an external service provider.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the work had not been exclusively performed by bargaining unit employees historically across the province, and that the Employer had validly contracted out the work to the external service provider.

The union filed grievances regarding a change to the employer's policy on the use of ministry vehicles, which required inspectors to keep vehicles at their headquarters rather than at home.

Prior to the hearing on the merits, the employer indicated it would argue the union had not made out a prima facie case and requested further particulars.

The union requested disclosure from the employer.

The Grievance Settlement Board directed the union to provide adequate particulars, finding some alleged facts were not sufficiently particularized.

The Board declined to order the employer to comply with the disclosure request at this stage, as the employer's impending motion could dispose of the matter without a hearing on the merits.

The Association filed a grievance alleging the Employer violated the Collective Agreement by failing to convert the grievor's temporary assignment to a permanent position.

The grievor had been in a temporary assignment for 34 months.

The central issue was whether there was a continuing need for the work of the temporary position to be performed on a full-time basis for greater than an additional 12 months beyond the initial 24 months.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that due to organizational restructuring, the special project work of the grievor's temporary position no longer existed.

The grievance was dismissed as the conditions for conversion were not met.

The Union filed grievances alleging harassment and claiming the grievor's resignation was not voluntary.

The Employer sought to have the issue of just cause for termination heard in the alternative, proposing a two-stage hearing process.

The Union opposed hearing the just cause issue and sought production of certain documents.

The Grievance Settlement Board ruled that the just cause issue would be heard in the alternative if the resignation was found to be involuntary, adopting the Employer's proposed two-stage procedure.

The Board also ordered the production of requested staff schedules and overtime records, but limited the timeframe to the period when the relevant manager was employed.

During an arbitration concerning the termination of a Probation & Parole Officer, the Employer brought a motion to exclude the testimony of a police officer whom the Union intended to call as a witness.

The Employer argued the evidence was not relevant, cogent, or helpful.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the Employer's motion, finding that the anticipated testimony was at least arguably relevant, and allowed the Union to call the witness.

The parties disputed the appropriate placement for the grievor, who had medical restrictions preventing him from working past 5:00 p.m. and on weekends.

The union argued the hours of the Video Conferencing position could be adapted without undue hardship, while the employer disagreed.

The arbitrator found that altering the schedules and the resulting extra cost would constitute undue hardship.

The parties subsequently reached an agreement to modify the General Duty Officer position to meet the grievor's restrictions, and the arbitrator directed the employer to place the grievor in that modified position.

The parties agreed to address the outstanding issue of the grievor's placement at the Central East Detention Centre via mediation/arbitration.

Following a conference call to address disputes over how the placement issues should be addressed, the Vice-Chair issued procedural directions.

The directions established the schedule and order of issues to be heard, prioritizing the assessment of the grievor's preferred posts (Video Conferencing and GDO) before considering the employer's proposed alternatives.

During a grievance arbitration hearing scheduled to deal with remedial issues, the Employer sought an order for the production of certain medical documentation.

The Union opposed the request.

The Vice-Chair determined it was appropriate to order the production sought by the Employer and directed the Union to seek production of specific medical records from various healthcare providers.

The Union referred a grievance regarding vacation pay to arbitration after the mandatory time limits set out in the Collective Agreement had expired.

The Employer raised a preliminary objection that the Grievance Settlement Board lacked jurisdiction to hear the grievance due to the late referral.

The Vice-Chair agreed, noting that arbitral jurisprudence and section 48(16) of the Labour Relations Act establish that an arbitrator does not have jurisdiction to extend the time for an untimely referral to arbitration.

The grievance was dismissed.

The Union filed a policy grievance alleging the Employer breached article 22.14 of the Collective Agreement by failing to disclose relevant documentation at the earliest stages of the grievance process.

The Union argued that article 22.14.5 created a broad disclosure obligation, including document production.

The Employer maintained that article 22.14.5 only referenced the disclosure obligations in article 22.14.4 and did not create new obligations.

The Grievance Settlement Board agreed with the Employer, finding that article 22.14.5 is a procedural provision that does not generally oblige a party to produce documents as part of its disclosure obligation.

The grievance was dismissed.