Kevin Banks

The Union brought a motion for a declaration that discipline imposed on the grievor, a Correctional Officer, was void ab initio because the Employer breached his representation rights under Article 30.1 of the Collective Agreement.

The Employer had asked the grievor for an Occurrence Report during a meeting without providing advance notice of his right to union representation.

The Arbitrator found that the meeting was part of an investigation into matters that could result in disciplinary action, and the Employer's failure to provide advance notice violated Article 30.1.

However, applying recent jurisprudence, the Arbitrator held that the discipline was voidable rather than void ab initio, and reserved the decision on remedy until the merits of the Employer's claim that discipline was warranted could be heard.

The parties consented to an order requiring the union to provide further and better particulars to the employer regarding the August 15, 2018 grievance.

The particulars must include the facts supporting the alleged breach of the collective agreement, including what was done, when, where, by whom, and with what motivation.

The particulars are to be treated as confidential and provided by February 1, 2021.

The employer brought a motion for further and better particulars regarding a grievance alleging a flawed and unfair job competition.

The union had provided some particulars, but the employer argued they were insufficient and lacked specific facts supporting the alleged breach of the collective agreement.

The arbitrator agreed with the employer, ordering the union to provide the requested particulars.

The arbitrator also upheld the employer's objection to the union's request for the grievor's entire personnel file, directing the union to specify which documents or time periods were arguably relevant.

The Union referred two matters to arbitration on behalf of the grievor regarding disciplinary suspensions.

The Employer raised preliminary objections, arguing the referrals were untimely and that one of the matters (a letter) did not constitute a valid grievance.

The Arbitrator found that the Employer had waived its right to object to the untimeliness of the referrals by participating in the Joint Review Process and scheduling a hearing without raising the objection for several months.

However, the Arbitrator agreed with the Employer that the second matter (the letter) did not constitute a distinct grievance and that the mandatory grievance steps for it had been abandoned.

Finally, the Arbitrator ruled that the initial grievance, liberally construed, sufficiently raised the issue of the length of the suspensions.

At a case management conference held by videoconference, the Arbitrator directed the Union to provide particulars of the grievance to the Employer by a specified date.

The Association filed a grievance claiming that Senior Investigators employed by the Ministry of Finance should receive overtime pay for time spent on-call for the Tobacco Call Line outside of normal working hours.

The Arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that the weight of arbitral authority establishes that stand-by or on-call duties do not constitute work for the purposes of overtime provisions unless expressly negotiated in the collective agreement.

The restrictions placed on the grievors while on-call were not sufficient to render the time as work, and the quantum meruit principle did not apply.

The Grievance Settlement Board directed the Union to provide particulars of the grievances to the Employer by February 28, 2020.

The union filed a grievance alleging that the employer failed to distribute overtime fairly and equitably, contrary to the collective agreement, after an employee was authorized to work overtime on three dates.

The employer argued that the overtime was authorized by a good faith scheduling mistake and was not discovered until after it had been worked.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that the term 'assignment' in the collective agreement does not apply to situations where the employer was unaware, due to a good faith error, that it had authorized overtime.

The union filed a grievance alleging that the employer breached the collective agreement by failing to notify the grievor of relocation options when employees were relocated from Toronto to Hamilton and Oshawa.

The matter proceeded to expedited mediation-arbitration.

The arbitrator found no breach of the collective agreement and dismissed the grievance without written reasons, in accordance with the expedited protocol.

The Union filed group grievances on behalf of Classroom Assistants working in provincially-operated special needs schools, alleging the Employer violated the collective agreement by limiting their hours of work to 36.25 hours per week instead of 40.

The Employer brought a motion to dismiss the grievances for failing to make out a prima facie case.

The Arbitrator found that the collective agreement provisions relied upon by the Union, including the Salary Schedule and Article 32.2.1, did not create an entitlement to a minimum of 40 hours of work per week for seasonal employees.

The motion was granted and the grievances were dismissed.

The grievor, a Ukrainian Christian, requested special leave under the collective agreement to observe two religious holidays.

The Employer denied the request because the holidays were not on the OPS List of Religious Holy Days and the grievor did not provide confirmation from his church regarding his religion.

The arbitrator found that the Employer's reliance on the OPS List and extraneous confirmation requirements, rather than conducting an individualized inquiry into the grievor's sincerely held beliefs, resulted in adverse treatment based on creed.

The grievance was allowed, and the Employer was directed to credit the grievor with two days of vacation leave.