Ken Petryshen

The union filed a grievance challenging the employer's introduction of paid parking at the Downsview Complex.

The employer brought a motion to dismiss the grievance without a hearing, arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction because the collective agreement did not address parking, and that the remaining allegations did not disclose a prima facie case.

The Board held it had no jurisdiction to deal with the introduction of paid parking or its reasonableness, as the collective agreement contained no restrictions on management's right to introduce it.

However, the Board allowed the grievance to proceed to a hearing solely on the allegations that the employer contravened the discrimination and health and safety provisions of the collective agreement.

In four individual grievances challenging discipline issued to correctional officers, the Grievance Settlement Board issued a consent order directing the Employer to produce all documents it intends to rely upon.

The Board also ordered the Employer to provide a list of any further arguably relevant documents, subject to conditions restricting their use, distribution, and requiring their return at the conclusion of the litigation.

The Employer requested the production of the grievor's medical records in relation to a grievance alleging a failure to accommodate a disability.

The Grievance Settlement Board found the records arguably relevant and ordered the Union to produce the grievor's psychiatric records and family physician's medical records pertaining to his psychiatric condition, subject to strict confidentiality conditions.

The parties engaged in a mediation-arbitration regarding the termination grievance of the grievor.

The Vice-Chair directed that the grievor be reinstated to employment in accordance with terms to be negotiated by the parties, without precedent and prejudice.

The Union brought a motion to allow Local Union officers to testify about management's failure to enforce a workplace smoking policy without disclosing the names of bargaining unit members they observed smoking.

The Union argued that compelling disclosure would undermine members' confidence in their representatives.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the motion, finding that the Employer's right to fully cross-examine witnesses on a highly relevant issue outweighed any potential labour relations interest in protecting the confidence of Union members in their representatives.

The Union filed grievances alleging the Employer violated the collective agreement by failing to provide incentive pay to staff divested through the sales tax reform project, similar to what was provided during a previous corporate tax divestment.

The Employer brought a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, arguing there was no collective agreement provision requiring such incentive pay.

The Grievance Settlement Board agreed with the Employer, finding the claim was a 'me too' argument without a link to a substantial right under the collective agreement, and dismissed the grievances for lack of jurisdiction.

The grievor, an Enforcement Service Representative at the Family Responsibility Office, was discharged for dishonesty on two occasions.

First, he misrepresented the circumstances surrounding criminal charges (fraud and breach of trust) discovered during a criminal record check, falsely claiming they arose from a misunderstanding over filing tax returns without written authorization.

Second, he requested a leave of absence ostensibly to care for his ill mother, but the leave coincided with his sentencing to 18 months in jail for the criminal charges.

The arbitrator found the grievor was dishonest in both instances, irreparably damaging the employment relationship, and upheld the discharge.

The Employer requested that the grievance hearing be held in Kingston, where the grievor, the Employer's witnesses, and the Employer's advisor reside and work.

The Union opposed the request, arguing that its hearings have historically been held in Toronto and that its representative and counsel reside there.

The Grievance Settlement Board determined that the balance of convenience favoured holding the hearing in Kingston, as a Toronto hearing would cause considerably more inconvenience and cost to the Employer than a Kingston hearing would cause the Union.

The union filed a grievance alleging the employer failed to make reasonable provisions for the grievor's health and safety, resulting in a workplace injury.

The grievance was filed approximately two years and nine months after the incident.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the grievance was untimely.

The arbitrator found that the time for filing began on the date of the injury, and there was no satisfactory explanation for the extreme delay.

The arbitrator declined to exercise discretion under section 48(16) of the Labour Relations Act to extend the time limit, and the grievance was dismissed.

The union brought a motion requesting to rely on the grievor's completed evidence-in-chief in support of its interim relief application, rather than submitting a signed declaration of particulars as required by the Board's Interim Relief Rule.

The employer opposed the request.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the motion, finding that the circumstances did not warrant a departure from the requirements of the Interim Relief Rule.

The Grievance Settlement Board revoked its previous decision of October 12, 2011.

Following a conference call and upon the request of the parties for limited reasons, the Board ruled that Article 9 of the Memorandum of Settlement should be interpreted in the manner advanced by AMAPCEO.

The Employer was directed to implement Article 9 accordingly.

The union filed two grievances alleging harassment and failure to accommodate due to disability.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the grievances were untimely, having been filed nine months after the triggering event.

The union argued the employer waived its right to object by participating in the joint file review process without raising the issue.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the employer had sufficient information to raise the timeliness issue early on but failed to do so at the first reasonable opportunity.

By participating in the joint file review process, the employer took a fresh step, thereby waiving its right to object to timeliness.

The employer's motion was dismissed.

The parties met before the Grievance Settlement Board to review issues concerning the bargaining unit integrity procedural protocol (BUI Protocol), originally ordered in 2003 and amended in 2006.

Both parties agreed that further amendments were necessary to address changing circumstances.

The Vice-Chair found it appropriate to amend the BUI Protocol, specifically regarding the number of hearing days per month and the participation of a Vice-Chair at the mediation stage, and directed the parties to comply with the amended protocol attached as Appendix A.

The employer requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing for a union policy grievance, arguing that the union had not provided sufficient particulars.

The union opposed the request.

Following a conference call, the Vice-Chair granted the adjournment, rescheduling the first day of the hearing to determine if the union can make out a prima facie case.

Two correctional officers grieved their discharge for failing to prevent or report the passing of contraband between units at the Chatham Jail.

The grievors observed an inmate attempting to pass contraband using a string, but took no action to stop it, confiscate the item, or report the incident to management.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the grievors engaged in serious misconduct involving health and safety risks, constituting a breach of trust.

Given the seriousness of the misconduct, their short service, and credibility issues regarding their statements to investigators, the Board concluded that reinstatement was not appropriate and dismissed the grievances.

The union filed a grievance challenging the results of a job competition for a Special Projects Foreman/Woman position, alleging the employer breached the collective agreement by failing to consider resumes, personnel files, and references.

The employer conceded that the selection process was flawed but argued the flaws did not affect the outcome.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that while the employer breached its obligation to systematically consider all relevant information, the union failed to establish that the grievor's qualifications and abilities were relatively equal to the successful candidate's, even when the omitted information was considered.

The Board issued a declaration that the collective agreement was breached but declined to order the grievor placed in the position or to direct a rerun of the competition.

The Union filed grievances on behalf of Electronic Monitoring Officers (EMOs) claiming entitlement to the Custodial Responsibility Allowance (CRA) under the collective agreement.

The CRA requires employees to direct offenders engaged in beneficial labour for a major portion of their working time.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that EMOs spend the vast majority of their time monitoring offenders in the community to ensure compliance with release conditions, rather than directing offenders engaged in labour beneficial to the institution.

The grievances were dismissed.

The union filed a grievance alleging that a pilot engaged in firefighting duties was entitled to compensating time off under the collective agreement for hours worked beyond 7.25 hours.

The employer argued that the collective agreement provision did not apply due to a separate Float Agreement governing pilots, and alternatively, that the grievor did not have a 'regularly scheduled work day' as required by the provision.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the Float Agreement specifically addressed overtime and compensating leave, thereby precluding the application of the collective agreement provision.

Furthermore, the Board held that due to the irregular nature of the pilot's hours, he did not have a regularly scheduled work day.

The parties sought the assistance of the Grievance Settlement Board to resolve issues regarding the implementation of Minutes of Settlement.

The grievor claimed entitlement to a payout of vacation credits without deductions to compensate for delayed implementation, and requested the Employer pay an amount equal to the deductions made from her severance pay because it failed to deposit the payment into her RSP account.

The Vice-Chair directed the Employer to pay the vacation pay less normal statutory deductions, and dismissed the claim regarding the severance pay deductions, finding the grievor failed to raise the issue in a timely manner and could not repay the initial deposit to allow the Employer to comply with her direction.

The Employer requested an adjournment of a scheduled grievance hearing date because it had not yet completed a broad document production request from the Union and the parties had not finished exchanging particulars.

The Union opposed the request.

The Grievance Settlement Board granted the adjournment, finding it made no sense to proceed without the requested documents and particulars.