Michael V. Watters

The union grieved the employer's decision not to award the full-time position of Quality Control Logistics Representative to the grievor, who was the more senior applicant.

The collective agreement contained a 'sufficient ability' clause requiring the promotion of the senior employee provided they were qualified.

The employer utilized a selection process comprising an interview, written tests, and a reference check, ultimately determining the grievor was not qualified.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding the selection process was comprehensive, fair, and reasonably concluded that the grievor lacked the requisite qualifications for the position.

The grievor, a Customer Service Representative with physical restrictions due to workplace injuries, was placed on modified duties.

The Employer subsequently refused to schedule her for Sunday and premium shifts, claiming she could not perform the essential cash and stock functions required on those days.

Later, the Employer concluded it could no longer accommodate her and pursued a Labour Market Re-entry plan.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the Employer failed to accommodate the grievor to the point of undue hardship.

The Employer improperly relied on a blanket rule for Sunday scheduling and failed to adequately assess whether the grievor's tasks could be bundled or whether she could be placed in another position.

The Board ordered the Employer to reinstate the grievor and conduct a proper assessment of accommodation options.

The Employer brought a preliminary motion to prohibit the Union from leading evidence related to events predating a June 2002 Memorandum of Settlement.

The Union sought to introduce this evidence to establish a pattern of discrimination against the grievor.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that the Union was precluded from presenting evidence about the facts and circumstances underlying the previously settled grievances, emphasizing the importance of preserving the sanctity of final settlements.

However, the Union was permitted to lead evidence about events occurring between the filing of the settled grievances and the current grievance, including evidence that the settlement itself was breached.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the employer to provide the union with the grievor's telephone number and e-mail address following a conference call.

A casual Customer Service Representative grieved the Employer's refusal to reimburse her for the cost of safety footwear, which she was required to purchase following an order by an Occupational Health and Safety Inspector.

The Union argued that the Employer was obligated to pay for the footwear under the Occupational Health and Safety Act and the collective agreement.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the Act only required the Employer to ensure protective devices were provided, not to pay for them.

Furthermore, the collective agreement's reimbursement provision for casual employees only applied to those required to operate power lifting equipment as part of their regular duties, which the grievor was not.

The Union applied for interim relief in the form of a cease and desist order against the Employer, alleging that the Employer threatened and transferred the grievor in reprisal for raising a scheduling grievance.

The Union argued that the Employer's actions had a chilling effect on other bargaining unit members.

The Grievance Settlement Board denied the application, finding that the Union failed to establish that the balance of harm favoured granting the relief.

The Board noted that the requested order would essentially restate existing legislative prohibitions against reprisals, for which significant remedies already exist, and that granting the order would inappropriately predetermine a central issue in the case.

The union filed a group grievance on behalf of Investigators in the Special Investigations Branch, arguing they should have been included in a classification adjustment negotiated for Tax Auditors in a Letter of Understanding.

The employer raised preliminary objections regarding the Board's jurisdiction to award a classification remedy.

The Board found the phrase 'positions of Tax Auditors' latently ambiguous and admitted extrinsic evidence of negotiating history.

Based on the evidence, the Board concluded the parties did not intend to include Investigators in the Tax Auditor classification adjustment, as the adjustment was specifically targeted at recruitment and retention issues for Tax Auditors.

The grievance was denied.

The grievors, who worked as Operators with headquarters at the Kingston Township Wastewater Plant, were directed by the Employer to report directly to a different work location (Odessa) for rotational assignments.

The Union grieved, arguing that the grievors were entitled to compensation for the additional travel time and mileage incurred by commuting directly to Odessa in their personal vehicles, as well as meal allowances.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that while the Employer had the right to rotate employees, it violated the collective agreement by failing to compensate the grievors for the extra kilometres travelled and the additional time spent in such travel outside of working hours.

The Board also found a violation of the provision stating that use of a personal vehicle on Employer business is not a condition of employment.

The claim for meal allowances was dismissed as the new location was within 24 kilometres of their headquarters.