Michael Lynk

The Union filed a grievance alleging the Employer violated its duty to accommodate by permanently changing the Grievor's employment status from full-time to part-time.

The Union requested production of all seemingly relevant documents.

After the Employer failed to produce further documents as promised, a conference call was held.

The Arbitrator ordered the Employer to provide all documents arguably relevant to the decision to change the Grievor's employment status by October 18, 2024.

The parties agreed to a consent order adjourning two grievances filed by the grievor.

The employer consented to the adjournment on the condition that the overtime grievances be scheduled together and proceed through the mediation/arbitration procedure.

The employer reserved the right to bring preliminary objections, and the union agreed to provide particulars in advance of the new hearing date.

The Employer requested an order directing the Union to provide additional particulars regarding a grievance alleging that a manager yelled at and made non-consensual physical contact with the grievor.

The Arbitrator denied the request, finding that the particulars already provided by the Union were sufficiently detailed and contextual to enable the Employer to understand the allegations and prepare its defence.

The Arbitrator noted that the finer points of the allegations properly belong in the hearing process.

The union filed grievances on behalf of an employee who suffered electrical shocks at work, seeking $10,000 in damages for the employer's failure to maintain a safe workplace and a declaration of breach.

The employee had already received benefits under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act (WSIA).

The employer brought a preliminary motion to strike the claims.

The arbitrator allowed the motion, finding that the Board lacked jurisdiction to award monetary damages for injuries compensable under the WSIA's no-fault scheme.

The arbitrator also dismissed the request for a declaration as moot, since the employer had already resolved the electrical hazard and no further incidents had occurred.

The union grieved the termination of a seasonal warehouse worker who was subject to a last chance agreement.

The employer terminated the worker after he left his work station three minutes early for a break while the conveyor light was on, arguing this constituted insubordination and justified discipline under the strict terms of the agreement.

The arbitrator found that the employer was justified in imposing discipline given the worker's recent disciplinary record and prior coaching.

The arbitrator rejected the union's arguments that the breach was de minimis or that the termination was void ab initio, holding that the strict terms of the last chance agreement must be enforced.

The grievance was dismissed.

In a bifurcated grievance arbitration concerning the duty to accommodate and alleged historic harassment, the Arbitrator issued procedural orders for the first phase of the hearing.

The Arbitrator imposed confidentiality conditions on the disclosure of the grievor's medical documents to the employer's counsel.

Additionally, both parties were ordered to produce particulars and documents relating to efforts to accommodate the grievor, including through telework and the Health Reassignment Program.

The employer was directed to present its evidence first.

The Employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss a grievance challenging a 15-day suspension on the basis that it was filed more than three months late.

The Union argued that the time limits should be extended under s. 48(16) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Grievance Settlement Board considered the Schiff factors and found that the length and seriousness of the discipline, the grievor's lack of responsibility for the delay, and the absence of substantial prejudice to the Employer justified extending the time limits.

The Employer's motion to dismiss the grievance was denied.

In a grievance arbitration, the Grievance Settlement Board issued interim orders regarding the production of documents.

The Board directed that non-confidential documents may be shared on a need-to-know basis for case preparation, while confidential documents, including the grievor's medical and WSIB files, are subject to strict limitations.

Confidential documents may only be shared with specific named individuals for obtaining instructions or preparing witness testimony, and copies may not be made or retained after the proceedings.

The Ministry of Transportation raised a preliminary objection to the Union's attempt to introduce evidence regarding purported job re-assignment commitments made to the grievor in 2010 and 2011.

The grievances, filed in September 2012, alleged that the Employer failed to properly redeploy or accommodate the grievor following a surplus notice in April 2012.

The Grievance Settlement Board upheld the Ministry's objection, finding that the new claim was fundamentally different from the original grievances and could not be reasonably construed as an inherent part of them, even when reading the grievance language broadly.

The Union was directed that it could not litigate the issue of the 2010 and 2011 commitments as part of the present grievances.

The grievor received a surplus notice and was redeployed to a lower-classified position.

The Union grieved, arguing the surplus notice improperly relied on her home position (Change Control Officer) rather than the temporary duties she had been performing (Technology Support Analyst).

At the close of the Union's evidence, the Employer brought a motion for a non-suit.

The Grievance Settlement Board granted the motion, finding the Union failed to present sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case of a collective agreement violation, as the Employer's actions complied with the collective agreement's provisions regarding surplussing and redeployment based on the grievor's home position.

The union filed grievances alleging the employer failed to accommodate the grievor and exacerbated her medical condition during a modified return-to-work program.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the grievances as moot, arguing that the grievor was retroactively approved for Long Term Income Protection (LTIP) total disability benefits for the relevant period, meaning she could not have been accommodated.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the employer's motion, finding that the core of the grievances—whether the employer's actions caused injury and engaged its collective agreement obligations—remained unresolved and required adjudication on the merits.

The Employer brought a preliminary motion arguing that the parties had reached a binding agreement to settle the union's grievance during mediation.

The Union argued that no final agreement had been reached because substantive issues remained unresolved and the grievor had not signed the draft agreement.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that a meeting of the minds on all substantive issues had occurred by the end of the mediation session, and the subsequent communications were merely drafting exercises.

The Board held that the agreement was binding and enforceable, noting that grievor consent is not legally required to finalize a settlement unless explicitly made a condition.

In a grievance arbitration concerning the dismissal of an employee for alleged harassment and intimidation of a supervisor, the Union brought a motion for a non-suit at the conclusion of the Employer's evidence.

The Union argued the Employer had not met the prima facie standard of proof regarding the dismissal.

The Vice-Chair reviewed the legal principles governing non-suit motions, which require the decision-maker to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to support the claim if all inferences are drawn in favour of the responding party.

Applying this standard, the Vice-Chair found the Employer's evidence sufficient and dismissed the non-suit motion, directing the hearing to continue.

The grievor, a Data Processing Technician, was laid off after his position was relocated and he declined to move.

He filed two grievances alleging the Employer breached the collective agreement by failing to redeploy him to a Payment Processing position or allow him to displace a junior employee, and by failing to provide him with a temporary assignment during his surplus notice period.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed both grievances, finding that the grievor lacked the requisite financial qualifications to perform the core duties of the Payment Processing position without a training period, and that the union failed to prove that any temporary vacancies existed for which the grievor was qualified.

The union grieved the termination of a seasonal warehouse worker.

By consent of the parties, the Grievance Settlement Board ordered the grievor reinstated subject to strict conditions.

The period from termination to reinstatement was deemed a disciplinary suspension without pay.

The reinstatement was subject to a two-year last chance agreement requiring strict adherence to health and safety policies, prohibition of horseplay or harassing conduct, and maintenance of average productivity.

Any breach of these conditions would constitute just cause for termination.

The union alleged the employer breached a Memorandum of Settlement by failing to award a surplussed employee a vacant Group Leader position during a redeployment search.

The union argued the employer failed to consider an updated employee portfolio and wrongly concluded the employee lacked the necessary qualifications.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding the employer was not required to consider the late portfolio under the settlement terms.

Furthermore, the Board held the Group Leader position legitimately required a virtually-fully-functional knowledge of the Highway Traffic Act without a familiarization period, which the employee did not possess.

The Employer requested an adjournment of two scheduled hearing dates in November 2011 for a suspension and dismissal grievance, citing a significant scheduling conflict.

The Union opposed the request, noting the grievor had been suspended without pay since July 2009 and desired a prompt resolution.

The Grievance Settlement Board granted the adjournment subject to conditions, including the scheduling of six further hearing dates in January and February 2012 and the preservation of the Union's right to claim verifiable costs resulting from the adjournment.

The parties entered into a Memorandum of Settlement in 2009 to resolve a grievance.

The arbitrator remained seized of implementation issues.

The employer brought a motion regarding the interpretation of the phrase 'a vacant position' in the settlement.

Following a conference call, the arbitrator allowed the employer's motion, finding its argument persuasive.

The ruling was made without precedent or prejudice to the interpretation of the collective agreement.

The Employer brought a motion to adjourn the grievance proceedings because the grievor had an active application before the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario alleging the Employer contravened a settlement agreement.

The Union did not oppose the adjournment, provided it was without prejudice to its jurisdictional position.

The Grievance Settlement Board granted the adjournment, with conditions that proceedings may resume after the Tribunal's adjudication or if it serves the purposes of the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act.

At the opening of a grievance arbitration hearing, two preliminary issues were raised.

First, the grievor requested full party standing separate from the union, arguing the union was in an adversarial position due to her human rights complaint against it.

The Board denied this request, affirming the union's exclusive carriage rights over grievances.

Second, the union requested an adjournment of the arbitration pending the outcome of the grievor's human rights complaint against the union, arguing the factual overlap placed it in a conflict.

The Board denied the adjournment, finding the grievances against the employer could be adjudicated without a factual determination of the human rights complaint against the union.