Loretta Mikus

The grievor, an employee with over 32 years of service, filed grievances alleging inappropriate physical contact and intimidation by his supervisor.

The incidents involved a brief physical interaction in a hallway to resolve a standoff and a subsequent office interaction where the grievor felt intimidated.

The Grievance Settlement Board found no material dispute concerning the facts, concluding that the supervisor's actions were not intended as an assault or an attempt to intimidate.

The grievances were dismissed as there was no breach of the collective agreement.

The grievor, a receptionist, filed a grievance alleging harassment and discrimination by her Area Manager.

The allegations stemmed from the manager's criticisms of the grievor's dress choices, her eating an avocado with a knife at her desk, and the denial of a transfer request.

The Grievance Settlement Board reviewed the Ontario Correctional Services Code of Conduct and Professionalism and staff meeting minutes, concluding that the manager's directions were in accordance with established standards.

Finding no violation of the Collective Agreement, the Board dismissed the grievance.

The grievor, an Inspector at the Ministry of Labour, filed a grievance alleging harassment by her supervisor, citing two instances where she felt criticized and belittled in front of colleagues.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that even if the allegations were true, the employer was dealing with performance issues and did not intend to harass the grievor, thus no violation of the Collective Agreement was established.

The union alleged that the employer breached a Memorandum of Settlement (MOS) regarding the grievor's panel assignment and sick leave credits.

The MOS provided that on the next occasion to change panels, the grievor would have the option to have one of her newly appointed judges reassigned.

The employer complied with this in 2014.

In 2015, the employer reassigned the grievor's panel again due to operational reasons.

The Vice-Chair found that the MOS only applied to the next occasion of reassignment, which occurred in 2014, and placed no constraints on future reassignments.

The Vice-Chair also found no evidence that the employer failed to restore the sick leave credits.

The grievance was dismissed.

The grievor, a correctional officer with dyslexia, filed a grievance alleging discrimination, harassment, and a poisoned work environment after a co-worker called him a 'retard' and an 'idiot' and allegedly made a threatening gun gesture.

The grievor claimed the harassment continued and the Employer failed to adequately investigate or address his complaints under the Workplace Discrimination and Harassment Policy.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the Employer failed to ensure a workplace free from discrimination and harassment, as its investigation was too narrow and ignored the ongoing nature of the complaints.

The Board awarded the grievor $1,500 in damages for loss of dignity and mental distress.

The grievor, an employee of the Ministry of Education, sought long-term disability benefits after going off work due to depression and post-traumatic stress disorder following a sexual assault.

The insurer denied benefits on the basis that her level of impairment was not consistent with an inability to perform her duties and that her absence was merely preventative pending the criminal trial of her assailant.

The Grievance Settlement Board reviewed the medical documentation, including reports from her treating physicians and an independent medical evaluator, and found that her symptoms were real and her fear of failing at work again was a legitimate stressor.

The Board concluded she was unable to perform the essential duties of her position and allowed the grievance, entitling her to benefits for the disputed period.

The Union brought a motion to bar the Employer from sending a letter to an Independent Medical Examination (IME) physician, arguing the letter was factually incorrect and would prejudice the physician against the grievor.

The parties had previously executed Minutes of Settlement requiring the Employer to provide the Union with the questions for the IME doctor for discussion prior to sending them.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the motion, finding that the settlement did not obligate the Employer to share the accompanying letter with the Union.

The Board noted that the Union retains the right to challenge the neutrality of the IME report at the hearing on the merits.

The Employer brought a motion to adjourn a scheduled grievance mediation/hearing because an independent medical examination (IME) for the grievor was scheduled for the same day.

The Employer argued it would be more productive to meet after the IME report was completed.

The Union opposed the adjournment, arguing there were outstanding issues regarding the substance and form of the IME that needed to be resolved.

The Grievance Settlement Board denied the motion, finding that the scheduled day could be well used to mediate the outstanding issues regarding the IME and lost sick pay, preparing the setting for the major issue of future accommodation.

The union referred two grievances to arbitration nearly two years after the employer denied them at Stage Two.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the referral was outside the 15-day time limit in the collective agreement.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that, pursuant to section 48(16) of the Labour Relations Act and established jurisprudence, it has no jurisdiction to extend the time limits for referring a grievance to arbitration.

The employer's motion was granted and the grievance was dismissed.

The grievor, a Transportation Enforcement Officer, was discharged after pleading guilty to two counts of performing an indecent act while off duty.

The employer argued the conduct harmed its reputation and the grievor's ability to work with other law enforcement agencies, relying on the Millhaven criteria.

The arbitrator found the employer had cause to discipline the grievor for his off-duty conduct, as it had the potential to negatively affect the Ministry's reputation and operations.

However, considering mitigating factors including the grievor's medical diagnosis, treatment efforts, and low risk of reoffending, the arbitrator concluded discharge was excessive.

The grievor was reinstated without compensation, effectively serving a lengthy unpaid suspension.

The grievor, a correctional officer, was terminated for his involvement in an incident where an inmate suffered significant injuries.

The Employer initiated an investigation and subsequently terminated the grievor for unauthorized use of force and failing to submit a proper occurrence report.

The grievor was later charged criminally with assault causing bodily harm.

The Union brought a motion to adjourn the arbitration proceedings pending the outcome of the criminal trial, arguing that the criminal conviction would be conclusive evidence and raising concerns about inconsistent results and the impact of the arbitration on the criminal proceedings.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the motion, finding that the expected delay of over a year was excessive and unreasonable for all parties.

The grievor, a nurse consultant, was denied long-term disability (LTD) benefits by the insurer and placed on an unpaid leave of absence by the employer.

She sued the insurer and reached a settlement for arrears and future benefits.

The union grieved, arguing the settlement reinstated her status as an employee in receipt of LTD benefits, entitling her to collective agreement benefits like vacation and pension credits.

The Grievance Settlement Board allowed the grievance in part, finding the settlement arrears constituted LTD benefits up to the settlement date, but the future lump sum payment was in lieu of benefits, meaning she was on an unpaid leave of absence thereafter.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss a series of grievances filed by correctional officers, arguing that because no discipline was ultimately imposed following an investigation into a work stoppage, the issues were moot and there was no live controversy.

The Grievance Settlement Board reviewed the grievances and found that several alleged ongoing harassment, discrimination, and reprisal for exercising health and safety rights, rather than merely seeking the removal of disciplinary letters.

Applying the doctrine of mootness, the Board concluded that these allegations constituted a live controversy between the parties.

The employer's motion to dismiss was therefore dismissed, and the matters were ordered to proceed to hearing.

The union grieved the employer's decision to deny the grievor an interview for a Regional Program Officer position.

The employer screened applicants based on criteria derived from the job specifications, placing significant weight on computer skills and environmental knowledge.

The grievor scored 43%, below the 60% threshold required for an interview.

The arbitrator found that the employer's screening criteria and weighting were reasonable and consistent with the job duties.

Although the arbitrator adjusted the grievor's scores slightly upward for certain criteria, the revised score still fell below the threshold.

The grievance was dismissed.

The grievor suffered from PTSD and received LTD benefits until they were denied by the insurer.

She sued the insurer and reached a settlement, while the employer placed her on an unpaid leave of absence, affecting her collective agreement benefits.

The union grieved, arguing the settlement reinstated her LTD status and benefits.

The employer raised a preliminary objection, arguing the dispute was between the grievor and the insurer and outside the Board's jurisdiction.

The arbitrator dismissed the objection, finding that determining whether the settlement reinstated her entitlement to LTD benefits under the collective agreement was a matter of interpretation within the Board's jurisdiction.

The union brought a preliminary motion requesting that the employer proceed first in a grievance arbitration concerning the transfer of an accommodated employee.

The grievor had been accommodated in a control room position for several years but was transferred to a newly created radio room position, which she alleged violated her medical restrictions due to claustrophobia.

The union argued the employer should proceed first because it possessed exclusive knowledge of the reasons for the transfer.

The arbitrator dismissed the motion, finding that the employer had placed the grievor in a position it asserted met her restrictions, and the union bore the onus of proving the new accommodation was unsuitable and that the employer violated the collective agreement and the Human Rights Code.

The parties reached an agreement on February 23, 2012, to resolve the grievance.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued a consent order making the agreement an order of the Board.

The grievor, an Application Analyst with 10 years of service, was terminated for insubordination after a series of progressive disciplines (suspensions ranging from 1 to 20 days).

The employer alleged she repeatedly failed to attend mandatory meetings, provide weekly status reports, and complete assignments, while taking unauthorized medical leaves.

The union argued the conduct was non-culpable due to stress from her mother's illness and perceived harassment by her supervisor.

The Grievance Settlement Board found the employer established insubordination, noting the grievor's intentional disregard for her supervisor's authority and failure to correct her behaviour despite numerous warnings.

The grievance was dismissed.

The grievor, a Correspondence Clerk, grieved the Employer's decision to change her hours of work from 7:30 a.m. - 3:30 p.m. to 8:30 a.m. - 4:30 p.m.

The grievor argued the change prevented her from caring for her brother, who was undergoing cancer treatment, and claimed the refusal to accommodate her was a breach of the Human Rights Code.

The Employer maintained the change was for valid business reasons to ensure coverage for afternoon calls.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding the request related to her brother's needs rather than her own, and there was no proof that no one else could assist with the caregiving responsibilities.

The grievor, a Correspondence Clerk with diabetes, grieved the Employer's decision to change her hours of work from 7:00 a.m. - 3:30 p.m. to 8:30 a.m. - 4:30 p.m.

The union argued the new hours caused undue stress and failed to accommodate her medical condition, providing a medical note stating the previous schedule was imperative.

The Employer maintained the change was for valid business reasons to handle afternoon calls.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding the medical note lacked sufficient rationale to explain the strict scheduling requirement.