Loretta Mikus

The Union was previously ordered to provide the grievor's income tax forms and credit card invoices to the Employer.

The Union provided the credit card statements but redacted the descriptions of the expenses, citing privacy and relevance.

The Employer argued this rendered the statements useless for assessing the grievor's financial hardship claims.

The Grievance Settlement Board found the Union breached the previous order by unilaterally redacting the documents and ordered the production of complete, unredacted credit card statements and tax returns.

During a teleconference call, the Union sought disclosure of particulars and documents relating to the employer's investigation of workplace accommodations for the grievor, as well as information on specific job vacancies.

The Vice-Chair of the Grievance Settlement Board ruled that all the requested information was arguably relevant and ordered it to be exchanged prior to the next mediation date.

The Union brought a preliminary motion seeking an order that the Employer proceed first in a grievance alleging failure to accommodate.

The Union argued the Employer possessed the relevant information regarding its reasons for failing to accommodate.

The Employer contended that essential facts regarding the nature of the disability and the adequacy of the accommodation provided were in dispute and within the grievor's knowledge.

The Grievance Settlement Board agreed with the Employer, finding that because the essential elements of the facts were in dispute, the Union must proceed first to call evidence on the merits.

The union requested to consolidate a discharge grievance with an ongoing harassment grievance before the same Vice-Chair.

The employer agreed on the condition that a previous discipline grievance also be consolidated and heard first.

The union objected, arguing that joining the grievances would unduly delay the discharge hearing.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered that all four grievances be consolidated, finding that the suspension grievance must precede the dismissal grievance to properly determine the state of the grievor's disciplinary record, and adjourned the harassment grievance until the completion of those proceedings.

The Union filed a group grievance alleging the Employer fostered an unsafe and poisonous work environment due to the threatening behaviour of a co-worker.

The Employer raised preliminary objections, arguing the Grievance Settlement Board lacked jurisdiction or should defer to the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) because some grievors had filed a concurrent complaint under the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The Employer also argued the grievance was untimely and failed to disclose a prima facie case.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the preliminary objections, finding the Board had concurrent jurisdiction and no legislative direction required deferral.

The historical allegations were deemed admissible to establish a pattern, and the pleadings were found sufficient to disclose a prima facie case.

The union filed grievances on behalf of the grievor alleging denial of access to several job competitions.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the grievances were filed well outside the mandatory 30-day time limit under the collective agreement.

The grievor, a long-time union activist, admitted he knew of the time limits but consciously delayed filing while pursuing other job opportunities.

Applying the Becker Milk test under s. 48(16) of the Labour Relations Act, the Vice-Chair found the grievor was not diligent, the delay of up to 8.5 months was significant, and extending the time limits would prejudice the employer and the successful candidates who had been in the positions for months.

The Board declined to exercise its discretion to extend the time limits and dismissed the grievances regarding the job postings.

The grievor filed grievances challenging various suspensions, his discharge, and alleged discrimination.

The Union sought an order for particulars regarding two inmate witnesses the Employer intended to rely on.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the Employer to provide the facts upon which it intended to rely and to disclose all materials, including written, electronic, and handwritten notes, regarding the two inmates for any incarcerations in any Ministry institution.

At a hearing before the Grievance Settlement Board, the Employer requested an order directing the Union to provide particulars of its allegations of discrimination, including specific details of the incidents and any medical documents it intended to rely on.

The Board found the requested particulars to be arguably relevant and ordered the Union to provide them to the Employer in advance of the next hearing day.

The union brought a motion to consolidate two grievances filed by a correctional officer.

The first grievance alleged workplace harassment and discrimination, while the second alleged a failure to accommodate her return to work following an extended sick leave.

The employer opposed consolidation, arguing the issues were separate and distinct.

The Grievance Settlement Board granted the motion, finding that the grievances shared common questions of law and fact, and that requiring the union to present the same medical evidence in two separate hearings would be inefficient.

The Employer brought preliminary motions seeking to bifurcate the hearing into liability and remedy phases, and to delay the testimony of the Union's expert witness due to an incomplete exchange of particulars.

The Vice-Chair dismissed both requests, ruling that the Union was entitled to present its case as it saw fit, including calling medical evidence to establish the effect of the alleged breach of health and safety provisions.

The Vice-Chair also declined to interfere with the scheduling of the expert witness, noting that the parties had sufficient time to exchange particulars.

The grievor was suspended pending an investigation into criminal charges.

During her suspension, she submitted a request to retire to access her pension benefits due to financial hardship.

The Employer subsequently decided to terminate her employment and reject her retirement request, but failed to deliver the notice of termination to the grievor within the two-week notice period prescribed by section 19 of the Public Service Act.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that even if the Employer had the authority to reject the retirement request, it failed to do so in a timely manner.

The preliminary grievance was upheld, allowing the grievor to retire.

The union filed grievances alleging that the employer violated the community escort agreement and overtime protocol at the Ottawa Carleton Detention Centre on May 7, 2004.

The parties referred the matter to mediation/arbitration and requested a decision without reasons.

The arbitrator found that the employer failed to follow the overtime protocol for calling in community escorts and ordered compensation for the missed overtime opportunities.

The Union filed a grievance alleging the Employer violated Article 45 of the collective agreement by failing to properly advise employees of their vacation and attendance credits.

The parties proceeded to mediation/arbitration and requested a decision without reasons.

The arbitrator found the Union satisfied its onus, holding that while the Employer can offer access to credit information through the WIN system, it must do so in a manner that satisfies the collective agreement.

The Employer was ordered to provide the information in a more meaningful way if access is limited by availability, knowledge, or training.

The union filed a grievance regarding a disciplinary matter that resulted in a written reprimand and lost overtime opportunities for the grievor.

The parties referred the matter to mediation/arbitration and requested a decision without reasons.

The arbitrator ordered that the written reprimand be replaced with a non-disciplinary letter of counsel to remain on file for no longer than twelve months.

The arbitrator also ordered the employer to compensate the grievor for missed overtime opportunities by paying 90 hours of overtime pay.

The union filed a grievance regarding a disciplinary matter that resulted in a written reprimand for the grievor.

The parties referred the grievance to mediation/arbitration and requested a decision without reasons.

The arbitrator ordered that the written reprimand be replaced with a non-disciplinary letter of counsel to remain on the grievor's file for no longer than twelve months from the date of the incident.

The union filed grievances regarding a disciplinary matter that resulted in a lengthy suspension and a written reprimand for the grievors.

The parties referred the grievances to mediation/arbitration and requested a decision without reasons.

The arbitrator ordered that the written reprimand be replaced with a non-disciplinary letter of counsel to remain on file for no longer than twelve months.

The arbitrator further ordered the employer to pay each grievor $800 without deductions and credit each with a statutory holiday credit.

The union filed grievances seeking that the grievor be certified as a use-of-force instructor.

The parties referred the matter to mediation/arbitration and requested a decision without reasons.

The arbitrator directed the employer to complete the outstanding certification training for the grievor as soon as practical, after which the grievor would be permitted to resume regular instructor duties.

The union filed grievances alleging the employer violated the collective agreement regarding hours of work, seeking compensation and credits for missed wages.

The parties referred the grievances to mediation/arbitration and requested a decision without reasons.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievances, finding the union's argument could not succeed.

The union filed grievances regarding a single overtime assignment on October 18, 2003, alleging that the overtime protocol was not adhered to.

The parties referred the matter to mediation/arbitration and requested a decision without reasons.

The arbitrator found that the overtime protocol was breached and ordered compensation for one grievor for the missed twelve-hour overtime opportunity.

At a mediation, the grievor failed to appear despite having received notice and assuring his union representative that he would attend.

The employer moved to dismiss the grievance for lack of interest.

The Vice-Chair denied the motion at this stage, noting the grievor's stated intention to appear and the lack of an explanation for his absence.

The matter was set down for another hearing date, with leave for the employer to renew its motion if the grievor fails to appear again.