Michael V. Watters

The grievor, a Black man employed as a Correctional Officer, alleged that the Employer engaged in systemic discrimination, harassment, and reprisal, preventing his career advancement.

He cited several incidents, including unsuccessful applications for management positions, a disciplinary meeting regarding an email he sent, a scheduling error, and an investigation into preferential treatment of an inmate.

The Grievance Settlement Board found it lacked jurisdiction over the management position competitions.

Regarding the other incidents, the Board concluded there was no direct or circumstantial evidence that the grievor's race was a factor in the Employer's actions.

The grievance was denied.

The union filed a grievance alleging the employer violated the collective agreement regarding pay for a call-in on Sunday, January 1, 2017.

The grievor was paid call-back pay at time and one-half for four hours.

The union argued the grievor should have received holiday pay at double time for eight hours.

The arbitrator found that under the collective agreement, when a holiday falls on a Sunday, the following regular working day becomes the holiday in lieu.

Therefore, Monday, January 2, 2017 was the holiday for payment purposes, and the grievor was properly paid call-back pay for the work on January 1.

The grievance was dismissed.

The grievor, a casual customer service representative at the LCBO, was terminated for excessive absenteeism, failing to provide advance notice of absences, failing to provide required medical documentation, and reporting to work under the influence of alcohol.

The union grieved the termination, arguing that the grievor's misconduct was non-culpable due to an alcohol addiction and a history of spousal abuse, and that the employer failed to accommodate her disability.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the employer had repeatedly offered to accommodate the grievor and facilitate treatment, but the grievor consistently denied having an alcohol problem until shortly before her termination and failed to take steps to enroll in a treatment program.

In the absence of medical evidence establishing an addiction or demonstrating rehabilitation, the Board concluded that the employment relationship was no longer viable and upheld the termination.

The union grieved a 20-day unpaid suspension imposed on a correctional officer for using a racial slur during an exchange with an inmate.

The union acknowledged that discipline was warranted but argued the penalty was excessive given the grievor's clear disciplinary record and apologies.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that the use of a racial slur by a correctional officer towards an inmate constitutes extremely serious misconduct.

The arbitrator held that the 20-day suspension was reasonable and necessary to convey a strong message of deterrence, particularly because the grievor failed to report the incident immediately.

Following a previous decision, the parties were unable to resolve the issue of remedy regarding the monetary amount payable to the grievor.

The Vice-Chair issued a procedural order setting a strict schedule for the exchange of spreadsheets, responses, and payment, with a provision for a teleconference if agreement could not be reached.

The union filed a grievance challenging the employer's application of the Attendance Support and Management Program (ASMP) to the grievor.

The grievor had missed partial days due to illness, which the employer treated as separate occurrences, accelerating her progression through the ASMP levels.

The union argued this was unreasonable and that the employer failed to exercise discretion.

The employer maintained that the ASMP thresholds were valid and previously upheld.

The arbitrator, proceeding under an expedited process without reasons, found no breach of the collective agreement and dismissed the grievance.

The union filed a grievance alleging the employer breached the collective agreement when it awarded a seasonal recurring contract to an employee with less seniority than the grievor.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the grievance was inarbitrable because the grievor was a fixed term employee applying for a seasonal position, and the job posting provisions in the collective agreement only applied to vacancies in the Regular Service.

The Grievance Settlement Board upheld the preliminary objection, finding that the collective agreement's posting and selection provisions did not apply to seasonal or fixed term positions, and therefore the Board lacked jurisdiction to hear the grievance on its merits.

The union filed a grievance after the employer denied a probation and parole officer's request to attend a one-day training conference on gang violence.

The employer denied the request solely based on the cost of the training, without considering the employee's performance development plan.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that the collective agreement did not contain any provision entitling employees to training.

Consequently, the decision to approve or deny training fell within the employer's exclusive management rights, and absent bad faith or a violation of another collective agreement provision, the exercise of that discretion was not reviewable.

The union grieved the employer's decision to post a fixed-term Ambulance Communications Officer position with a mandatory requirement for advanced level oral French, while not requiring applicants to have already completed Entry to Practice training.

The grievors did not possess the required French language skills.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievances, finding that the employer's designation of the position as bilingual was a reasonable exercise of management rights for a legitimate business purpose in a designated French-speaking area.

Because the grievors lacked the mandatory language qualification, the employer's decision regarding the training requirement was immaterial to their lack of success in the competition.

The Employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the grievance, arguing that the Union failed to raise a prima facie defence to the declaration that the grievor abandoned her position under section 42 of the Public Service of Ontario Act, 2006.

The Employer sought to have the motion decided solely on the Union's statement of particulars without hearing viva voce evidence.

The Vice-Chair denied the motion, finding that the grievance also encompassed complaints of harassment and failure to accommodate, and that evidence was necessary to fairly and properly resolve the intertwined issues.

The grievors, Tobacco and Fuel Inspectors, initiated a work refusal due to safety concerns during a pilot project inspecting tobacco farms.

They subsequently filed grievances alleging that the Employer harassed them in response to their safety concerns, citing dismissive behavior at meetings, delayed compliance with Ministry of Labour orders, and workplace isolation.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievances, finding that while the Employer's conduct did not promote good labour relations, it fell short of the high threshold required to establish harassment under the collective agreement or the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The Union sought the production of health care documents from SARJ and EMDC related to a use of force incident involving an inmate on August 31, 2011.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the Employer to produce the requested documents, subject to the conditions set out in an earlier order.

The grievor, who suffered a work-related injury, was accommodated by working four days a week.

He received WSIB benefits but experienced a wage shortfall for the fifth day.

The Employer denied him access to the Short Term Sickness Plan (STSP) for the fifth day, relying on article 41.5 of the collective agreement.

The Union grieved, arguing this constituted discrimination based on disability under the Human Rights Code, as employees with non-work-related disabilities could access the STSP.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the WSIB scheme and the STSP are two distinct plans with separate purposes.

Relying on arbitral jurisprudence, the Board held that providing differential benefits under separate schemes for work-related versus non-work-related disabilities does not amount to prohibited discrimination.

The grievor, a Client Services Representative, grieved the Employer's decision not to offer her a temporary assignment as Acting Trial Co-ordinator, a position she had previously held permanently.

The temporary assignment was for less than six months and did not require posting.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the Employer had unfettered discretion in making such assignments, reviewable only for bad faith or discrimination.

The Board concluded the decision was made for a valid operational reason—cross-training staff—and dismissed the grievance.

The grievor was terminated for threatening and intimidating a co-worker, whom he had previously assaulted in 2004.

The union grieved the termination, arguing it was an excessive penalty and that the employer improperly relied on the 2004 incident, which fell outside the collective agreement's three-year sunset clause.

The arbitrator found that the grievor did threaten the co-worker and that the conduct warranted significant discipline.

However, the arbitrator also found that the employer improperly relied on the stale 2004 discipline to the grievor's detriment.

Considering the grievor's genuine remorse and the improper reliance on the prior record, the arbitrator substituted the termination with an unpaid suspension of approximately 11 months and reinstated the grievor with conditions.

The grievor was terminated for allegedly threatening a fellow employee.

The arbitrator found that the grievor engaged in threatening and intimidating behavior justifying significant discipline.

However, the arbitrator ordered the grievor to be conditionally reinstated without compensation, treating the time off as an unpaid suspension.

Reinstatement was conditional upon proof of continued psychiatric treatment, participation in anger management through the Employee Assistance Program, and strict adherence to the Workplace Intimidation And Violence Prevention Policy.

The Union filed a grievance alleging that the Employer failed to make reasonable provisions for the health and safety of employees at the Windsor ODSP office by refusing to install a plexiglass barrier at the front counter.

The parties agreed to refer the matter to arbitration to determine which proposed counter design met the Employer's obligations under the collective agreement and the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The arbitrator found that the Employer's comprehensive package of safety features, security procedures, and training, which included raising the counter height but excluded a plexiglass barrier, constituted a reasonable provision for employee safety and complied with the Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2001.

During a grievance arbitration concerning alleged discrimination and differential treatment, the Employer brought a motion to restrict the Union from arguing that the differential treatment also constituted a breach of the management rights clause (Article 2) of the collective agreement.

The Employer argued this was an inappropriate expansion of the grievance.

The Grievance Settlement Board denied the motion, finding that the wording of the grievance was sufficiently broad to encompass arguments under Article 2 and did not restrict the complaint solely to the prohibited grounds of discrimination under Article 3.

During a conference call in a grievance arbitration, the parties disputed the temporal scope of medical information to be provided to doctors conducting independent medical examinations of the grievor.

The union argued the information should postdate the grievor's promotion to a classified position in 2001, while the employer argued it should commence from the grievor's assumption of an unclassified position in 1998.

The Vice-Chair ordered that the medical information provided should commence from 1998.

The parties also agreed on restrictions regarding the initial dissemination of the resulting medical reports.

The Union filed a group grievance on behalf of Clerks at the Employer's Durham Warehouse, claiming they were entitled to a uniform allowance under the collective agreement.

The collective agreement provided a uniform allowance to employees who were 'previously eligible for uniforms'.

The Union argued that the Clerks' duties and working conditions exposed them to dirt and damage similar to Warehouse Workers, making them eligible.

The Employer maintained that Clerks had never been issued or asked for uniforms, and their duties were primarily clerical and performed in offices.

The arbitrator found that the Clerks spent the vast majority of their time in offices and were not exposed to the same level of dirt or damage as Warehouse Workers.

The grievance was dismissed.