Marilyn A. Nairn

The Association filed a grievance alleging that the Employer and Canada Life imposed an unreasonable precondition on members receiving negotiated health benefits by requiring blanket consent to obtain personal health information.

The Employer raised a preliminary objection to the Board's jurisdiction over Canada Life's administration of the provision.

The Arbitrator issued procedural directions, ordering the exchange of will-say statements and documentary production prior to the continuation of the hearing on the preliminary issue.

The complainant challenged the employer's decision not to select her for a Manager of Court Operations position.

She alleged the competition was flawed because the selection panel failed to independently consider her prior experience and performance in the role, and instead relied on an interview and presentation.

She also alleged the panel improperly considered her age.

The Board found the employer's choice of rating methods was reasonable and complied with its Employment Policy.

However, the Board found that notes from the panel's debrief meeting referencing an 'age factor' and 'stale' concepts established a prima facie case of age discrimination that the employer failed to rebut.

The Board ordered the competition to be re-run.

The Union brought a grievance regarding a competition for an excluded position.

The Employer indicated it would argue the Board lacks jurisdiction, but would do so during the merits hearing rather than as a preliminary objection.

The Arbitrator directed the Employer to produce all arguably relevant materials to the Union by specified dates and scheduled further hearing dates for the merits of the case.

In an interim decision regarding a grievance challenging the termination of the grievor's employment for allegedly filing false health benefit claims, the employer sought production of medical records and electronic notes/calendar entries.

The union opposed the request for electronic notes, arguing it was late and irrelevant.

The arbitrator found that the requested materials were arguably relevant to the issues in dispute, including the grievor's mitigation efforts, medical condition, and whether the claimed health services were provided.

The arbitrator ordered the production of the requested medical records and electronic notes.

The Union grieved the termination of the Claimant's long-term disability benefits.

The Claimant, who had previously experienced a major depressive episode attributed to workplace harassment, refused to participate in a gradual return-to-work plan at her home position, citing fears of a relapse.

The Arbitrator found that the medical evidence indicated the Claimant's condition was in full remission and she was capable of performing the essential duties of her occupation.

The Arbitrator concluded that the rehabilitation plan proposed by the insurer was reasonable and that the Claimant was not totally disabled at the time her benefits were terminated.

The grievance was dismissed.

The union filed a grievance alleging the employer failed to convene a Stage 3 meeting within the time limits set out in the collective agreement regarding an underlying harassment grievance.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that the collective agreement expressly provides a remedy for missed timelines—moving the grievance to the next stage—which had already occurred.

The arbitrator noted that scheduling is a shared responsibility and that the requested remedies, including fines and renegotiation of the grievance procedure, were outside the arbitrator's jurisdiction.

The parties convened for mediation which proved unsuccessful.

The arbitrator addressed case management issues, ruling that evidence regarding cause for discipline and appropriate penalty (including damages in lieu of reinstatement) would be heard together, while the calculation of any damages would be bifurcated.

The arbitrator also granted the Union's request to adjourn a scheduled hearing date because the grievor had recently commenced new employment and faced potential consequences for further absences during her probationary period.

The union sought an adjournment of a scheduled hearing date due to the grievor's medical issue, which the employer consented to.

On the reconvened date, the grievor failed to attend and could not be reached by the union.

The arbitrator ordered the grievor to provide an explanation for her absence prior to the next scheduled date and directed that any future medical absences must be substantiated by a medical certificate, warning that further unexplained absences could result in the grievance being dismissed.

The union filed a grievance claiming a shift premium for hours worked between 5:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on behalf of a part-time, flexible Court Clerk and Registrar.

The arbitrator found that the grievor's normal hours of work fell between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.

Under the collective agreement, the shift premium does not apply when an employee's normal hours fall within 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.

The grievance was dismissed.

In an ongoing arbitration regarding the reasonableness of the Employer's Fitness for Duty Policy following the legalization of cannabis, the Union sought production of a Senior Management Team briefing note and related email exchanges.

The Employer claimed these documents were exempt from disclosure based on solicitor-client privilege.

The Arbitrator found that the briefing note, co-authored by in-house legal counsel, and the email exchanges, which sought legal advice regarding a potential ban on recreational cannabis use, were protected by solicitor-client privilege.

The Arbitrator also rejected the Union's argument that the Employer had waived privilege by failing to identify the documents earlier in the proceedings.

The documents were ordered not to be produced.

The Union grieved the Employer's decision to deny the Grievor a promotion to a permanent full-time Warehouse Worker 3 position.

The collective agreement contained a threshold ability clause where seniority governed provided the applicant was qualified.

The Employer bypassed the Grievor, who was the senior applicant, relying on his recent disciplinary record and performance appraisals which indicated unsatisfactory work productivity.

The Arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that the Employer's reliance on the Grievor's disciplinary record and productivity metrics to determine he lacked the present ability and qualifications for the promotion was reasonable.

In advance of a discharge grievance hearing, the union requested the production of an investigation report and related materials.

The arbitrator ordered the employer to produce the investigation report, appendices, and non-privileged materials considered by the investigator.

The production was made subject to strict confidentiality conditions, including restrictions on copying, electronic distribution, and sharing with the grievor.

The Union requested pre-hearing disclosure of an Investigation Report and related materials concerning allegations of misconduct by the grievor.

The Employer resisted, citing the sensitive and confidential nature of the documents involving current and former employees.

The Arbitrator exercised her authority under section 48(12) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 to order the Employer to produce the requested documents, subject to strict confidentiality conditions restricting their use, distribution, and retention to the arbitration preparation process.

In a policy grievance challenging the employer's absolute prohibition on off-duty cannabis use for safety-sensitive positions, the union sought an order limiting the employer's evidence due to an alleged failure to provide full particulars.

The arbitrator declined to make an order limiting evidence at this stage, noting the union could object at the hearing.

The arbitrator directed the employer to provide written submissions on why it should not be ordered to file its expert report before the union.

The arbitrator also ordered the employer to produce drafts of the impugned policy provisions, finding them arguably relevant to the policy's reasonableness, subject to any claim of solicitor-client privilege.

The Employer requested an adjournment of a scheduled hearing date six days prior to the hearing, citing unavailability without providing an explanation.

The Complainant opposed the request.

The Public Service Grievance Board denied the adjournment, noting that the date had been agreed upon at a case conference and the Employer failed to provide any explanation for the late request or the change in availability.

The Union filed policy and individual grievances challenging the Employer's amended Fitness for Duty Policy, which prohibited all recreational use of cannabis for employees in safety-sensitive positions and required disclosure of medical cannabis prescriptions.

In an interim decision, the arbitrator addressed the order of proceeding and production of medical records.

The arbitrator directed the Union to proceed first, as it bore the legal onus to establish its allegations of unreasonableness and discrimination, and there was no compelling reason to depart from the usual order.

Regarding production, the arbitrator ordered third-party health providers to disclose the grievors' files to Union counsel first to vet for arguably relevant material relating to cannabis use, with the Employer to bear the costs of disclosure from its occupational health management providers.

The parties resolved a complaint by entering into a Memorandum of Settlement, but the Employer failed to fully comply with its terms due to payment errors.

Following a case conference, the Public Service Grievance Board ordered the Employer to review and verify the deductions and payments required by the settlement, specifically regarding legal fees, pension deductions, and benefit deductions.

The Complainant was directed to cooperate with reasonable requests to facilitate the correction of any payment errors.

The complainant failed to respond to a previous Board decision confirming his intention to proceed with the remaining aspect of his complaint and providing his availability for a hearing.

Consequently, the Board considered the complaint abandoned and dismissed it.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued an interim decision on case management and procedural issues regarding seven grievances alleging a failure to accommodate the grievor's disability.

The parties agreed to consolidate all seven grievances for hearing before the same arbitrator.

The employer agreed to produce relevant medical documentation and to accommodate the grievor during the hearing process with additional breaks and non-consecutive hearing days.

The end date for relevant evidence was set to February 16, 2022, when the grievor was assigned to the health reassignment process.

The Union filed grievances challenging the termination of the grievor's employment.

The employer produced an investigation report to Union counsel subject to confidentiality undertakings.

The grievor sought to share the report with family members supporting him in the grievance process.

The employer did not object, provided the family members accepted the appropriate undertakings.

The arbitrator issued an interim order directing that the named family members could review the investigation report subject to strict conditions of confidentiality and non-reproduction, limiting its use solely to the hearing of the matter.