Mary Lou Tims

In an interim decision, the Grievance Settlement Board addressed the production of documents by the Toronto Police Service in response to a summons requested by the employer.

A representative of the Toronto Police Service attended the hearing and presented the requested materials.

After hearing submissions, the Arbitrator ordered the Board to provide copies of the documents to both union and employer counsel, with the union reserving its rights regarding the materials for the reconvened proceedings.

In a grievance arbitration, the Employer sought production of particulars and medical records.

The Arbitrator ordered the Union to produce particulars of its allegations of harassment and discrimination, as well as any other allegations it bears the onus of proving.

The Arbitrator further ordered the Union to seek the grievor's medical records for a period commencing three years prior to hire and to produce agreed-upon records to the Employer, with any disputes to be resolved through an agreed process.

During a grievance arbitration, the union sought to introduce evidence of two prior incidents involving a witness to demonstrate workplace culture.

The employer objected, arguing the evidence was improper propensity evidence.

The arbitrator ruled that the evidence could not be admitted to show propensity.

However, because the employer had put workplace culture in issue, evidence of one incident was admitted as relevant to that issue.

Evidence of the second incident was excluded as irrelevant to the characterization of the work environment.

In a grievance arbitration concerning the termination of the grievor's employment, the union sought production of cell phone records from a third-party telecommunications provider.

The arbitrator ordered Fido to produce a full account of incoming and outgoing calls between two specified phone numbers for a defined period.

The records were ordered to be released to employer counsel, who would then provide them to union counsel without redaction, subject to privacy protections for personal information.

The union grieved the termination of the grievor's employment.

During the arbitration proceedings, the union sought the production of incoming call detail records from Bell Mobility for a specific telephone number.

On consent of both parties, the Grievance Settlement Board ordered Bell Mobility to disclose and release the requested records to the union's counsel.

The employer brought a motion to dismiss the grievances after the grievor failed to attend a scheduled hearing date.

During the proceedings, the employer withdrew its position.

The Vice-Chair ordered the parties to set new hearing dates, required the union to summons the grievor, and stipulated that no further adjournments would be granted for the grievor's non-attendance absent compelling reasons.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued an interim order regarding the grievor's failure to attend a hearing on June 1, 2015.

The grievor was ordered to produce documentary evidence to the Union by October 13, 2015, to support the request for an adjournment.

If the evidence is insufficient, the Employer may proceed with motions to dismiss the grievances.

The parties agreed that no liability would accrue from February 24, 2014, until the hearing on the merits commences.

The grievor filed grievances alleging the Employer failed to accommodate his disability by denying him health reassignment to three disputed positions: Customer Care Team Advisor, Administrative Assistant, and Correspondence Coordinator.

The parties agreed to a written hearing protocol to determine solely whether the grievor was qualified for these positions.

The Vice-Chair assessed the grievor's skills and experience against the minimum necessary qualifications for each role.

The Vice-Chair found the grievor was not qualified for the Customer Care Team Advisor or Correspondence Coordinator positions, dismissing those portions of the grievances.

However, the Vice-Chair concluded the grievor possessed the minimum necessary qualifications for the Administrative Assistant position, remitting that matter back to the parties for discussion.

The grievor failed to attend the scheduled hearing.

Union counsel requested an adjournment, advising that the grievor had obtained a new permanent position and his employer denied his request for time off.

The employer opposed the adjournment and sought dismissal of the grievances, noting previous adjournments.

The parties agreed to an interim order requiring the union to provide evidence supporting the adjournment request within two weeks, after which the employer would determine its position on whether to agree to the adjournment or seek dismissal via teleconference.

The grievor, a Youth Services Officer, was terminated for innocent absenteeism due to a chronic degenerative back condition.

He had used 310 sick days between 2009 and July 2013.

The union argued that the employer failed to accommodate his disability to the point of undue hardship by not accepting his above-average absenteeism.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the absenteeism was excessive and likely to continue.

Applying the Supreme Court's decision in Hydro-Quebec, the Board held that the duty to accommodate does not require an employer to completely alter the essence of the employment contract, which is the performance of work in exchange for remuneration.

The grievance was dismissed.

The Employer sought production of the grievor's complete medical records in a grievance arbitration.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the production of the records from January 1, 2004, to the present, subject to strict confidentiality conditions restricting their use and dissemination to the Employer's counsel and advisors for hearing preparation purposes only.

The grievor filed eight grievances in 2013 relating to a workplace injury sustained in 2006 and the employer's subsequent conduct, including an alleged failure to investigate her complaints and properly maintain vehicles.

The employer raised preliminary objections, arguing the grievances were untimely and barred by issue estoppel, as a previous grievance regarding the 2006 incident was dismissed in 2011.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that the grievances were not continuing in nature and were filed several years beyond the collective agreement's time limits.

The Board declined to extend the time limits under section 48(16) of the Labour Relations Act due to the extreme delay.

The Board also found that the health and safety allegations were barred by issue estoppel, and that the employer's participation in WSIB proceedings was protected by absolute privilege.

All grievances were dismissed.

The grievor failed to attend the scheduled arbitration hearing.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered that the Union must advise within three weeks if it intends to proceed with the next scheduled hearing date and provide reasons for the grievor's non-attendance.

If the Union fails to do so, the grievance will be deemed dismissed.

The Employer brought a motion to dismiss four of fifteen grievances filed by the grievor alleging sexual harassment, failure of duty of care, and a poisoned work environment.

The Employer argued that the particulars provided by the Union disclosed no prima facie violation of the collective agreement.

The Union argued that the incidents should be viewed contextually, relying on a previous 2008 grievance settlement.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that the 2008 decision was made on a without prejudice basis and could not be used to bolster the current grievances.

The Board found that the particulars, even if accepted as true, did not demonstrate a prima facie case of sexual harassment or trigger the Employer's duty to respond.

The Employer's motion was upheld and the four grievances were dismissed.

The union filed a grievance alleging that the employer discriminated against the grievor on the basis of gender, race, ancestry, and colour, resulting in the denial of employment opportunities and preventing her from meeting the criteria for conversion to a regular service position.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the grievance, arguing the union's particulars did not disclose a prima facie case.

The Grievance Settlement Board upheld the employer's motion, finding that even if the particulars were accepted as true, they failed to demonstrate that the grievor's protected characteristics were a factor in any adverse treatment she experienced.

The grievance was dismissed.

The Employer brought preliminary motions in a grievance arbitration regarding a surplus employee's displacement rights.

The Employer argued the Union could only advance a claim to a single displacement position and sought to exclude the grievor's job description and revised Employee Portfolios from evidence.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that the Union could advance multiple claims to displacement opportunities but must do so in the sequential order mandated by the collective agreement.

The Board also ruled that the Redeployment Services Office was not required to consider the job description or the subsequently revised Employee Portfolios, rendering them inadmissible.

The Union filed a policy grievance alleging the Employer violated the collective agreement by denying requests for union leave for members to prepare for upcoming contract negotiations.

The Employer argued that 'participating in negotiations' under article 5.6 only covered attendance at face-to-face bargaining sessions.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that 'participating in negotiations' must be broadly construed to encompass preparation for negotiations, given the complexity of bargaining and the core representational function it serves.

The grievance was upheld, and the Employer was found to have breached the collective agreement by failing to exercise its discretion to consider the leave requests.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the Union to provide full written particulars of eight grievances filed by the grievor.

The Union was directed to specify whether the grievances raised allegations different from those decided in a previous award, and if so, why they were not raised earlier.

The Employer was ordered to advise of any preliminary objections and respond to disclosure requests.

The Union sought production of documents related to a job competition.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the Employer to produce all arguably relevant documents in its possession to Union Counsel no later than thirty days prior to the next hearing date.

The Board also imposed a confidentiality order, directing that the documents be used only for the purposes of the hearing and that the grievor return them to Union Counsel upon conclusion of the proceedings.

In a grievance arbitration concerning the denial of sick leave and unfair dismissal, the Employer raised preliminary issues regarding the venue of the hearing, the sufficiency of the Union's particulars, and the production of documents.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered that the hearing be convened in Peterborough on the day the Union's medical expert testifies.

The Board also ordered the Union to provide further particulars for specific paragraphs of its assertions.

Regarding document production, the Board ordered the production of meeting notes and the grievor's personal diary, but declined to order the production of further medical records at this stage of the proceedings.