Michael Watters

The grievor suffered a workplace injury and eventually returned to work on a modified schedule, working four days a week.

He sought to use the Short Term Sickness Plan (STSP) to cover his fifth day off.

The employer argued that Article 41.5 of the collective agreement precluded him from accessing the STSP because his absence was due to an injury for which a WSIB award had been made and his initial WSIB leave period had expired.

The Grievance Settlement Board agreed with the employer, finding that the clear language of Article 41.5 applied to the grievor's situation, thereby preventing him from using the STSP for his regular, accommodation-related absences.

The parties reached a Memorandum of Settlement regarding several grievances, which required the Employer to replace a letter of reprimand with a letter of counsel.

The settlement stipulated that the content of the letter of counsel was subject to the approval of the parties.

The Union rejected the Employer's drafted letter of counsel, arguing it was overly retrospective, accusatory, and failed to clearly set out expectations for future conduct.

The Grievance Settlement Board, remaining seized of the settlement's implementation, found that the Union reasonably exercised its right to reject the draft.

The Board ordered the Employer to revise the letter of counsel to be more forward-looking and instructive.

In a grievance arbitration concerning a casual employee's entitlement to a paid rest period and an allegedly retaliatory transfer, the Union sought to introduce similar fact evidence of prior intimidation by a manager, as well as extrinsic evidence of past practice to interpret the collective agreement and establish estoppel.

The Grievance Settlement Board ruled that the similar fact evidence was inadmissible, as the prior incidents lacked striking similarity to the current grievance and admitting them would cause undue prejudice and delay.

However, the Board permitted the Union to introduce extrinsic evidence regarding past practice, reserving judgment on whether it disclosed a latent or patent ambiguity in the collective agreement or established an estoppel against the Employer.