M.V. Watters

The Employer brought a preliminary motion asserting that the grievor, a seasonal employee, lost his seniority under the collective agreement by declining an offer of re-employment when his position was relocated.

The grievor had suffered a severe medical condition and requested accommodation, but the Employer refused to provide the necessary medical assessment forms until he accepted the relocated position.

The Arbitrator dismissed the motion, finding that the grievor's actions, including his request for accommodation and filing of a grievance, demonstrated an intent to maintain employment rather than decline the offer.

In a grievance concerning the duty to accommodate, both parties sought pre-hearing production of documents.

The Union requested additional particulars regarding the Employer's search for modified work, including regular and fixed-term positions.

The Employer requested the grievor's medical records and sought to share them with the grievor's former manager.

The Arbitrator ordered the Employer to produce the requested job search particulars, finding them arguably relevant to the merits.

The Arbitrator also ordered the Union to produce the medical records but restricted access to Employer counsel and two advisors to balance the grievor's privacy interests with the Employer's right to a fair hearing.

The parties participated in a conference call regarding the disclosure of documents and the provision of particulars in a grievance arbitration.

The Arbitrator issued a consent order requiring the Employer to disclose the grievor's employment file, investigation files, and related documentation by May 15, 2020.

The Union was ordered to provide particulars relating to the grievor's allegations of sexual harassment by June 15, 2020.

The parties made submissions regarding the process for a timely and efficient hearing of the grievance.

The arbitrator ordered the employer to identify suitable accommodated positions for the grievor based on a functional abilities evaluation and to provide particulars of its search efforts.

The union was ordered to provide particulars regarding the earliest date the grievor could return to work.

The Union sought disclosure of an Investigation Report in the context of a grievance arbitration.

During a conference call, the parties consented to the disclosure of the report subject to strict confidentiality conditions.

The Arbitrator ordered the Employer to disclose the report, stipulating that it remain in Union Counsel's possession, be reviewed by the grievor only in counsel's presence, not be copied electronically, and be destroyed at the conclusion of the litigation.

The grievor, an electrician, sought mileage reimbursement for using his personal vehicle to travel to work when called back while on-call, after the employer discontinued a practice of allowing on-call employees to take fleet vehicles home.

The union argued that responding to a call-back constituted being on the employer's business.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that travel between an employee's residence and their regular workplace during a call-back is not travel on the employer's business under the collective agreement, and the employer did not require the grievor to use his personal vehicle.

The grievor, a correctional officer, was terminated for allegedly using excessive force by directing an inmate's head into a steel door frame and failing to properly document the incident.

The union grieved the termination and the forfeiture of unused vacation credits.

The arbitrator reviewed video evidence and expert testimony, concluding that the grievor intentionally pushed the compliant inmate into the door frame, constituting an excessive use of force.

The arbitrator also found the grievor failed to accurately report the incident.

Given the serious breach of trust and the grievor's lack of remorse, the termination was upheld.

The grievance regarding the forfeiture of vacation credits was also dismissed as the employer's actions complied with the collective agreement.

The grievor filed a grievance alleging systemic discrimination and harassment that prevented his career advancement.

The Employer brought a preliminary motion to restrict the scope of evidence to incidents occurring within three years prior to the grievance (the 'three-year rule').

The Union argued for an extension to establish a pattern of discrimination.

The Arbitrator granted the Employer's motion, finding that the three-year period provided a fair balance and that no unique circumstances justified a departure from the rule.

The union filed grievances on behalf of several Ambulance Communication Officers, arguing that the employer improperly calculated their continuous service dates (CSD) when they transitioned from fixed-term to regular full-time employees.

The union contended that the employer's strict requirement of 40-hour work weeks to count towards CSD unfairly disregarded hours worked under compressed work week agreements.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievances, finding that the clear language of the collective agreement supported the employer's calculation method, which required 40 hours per week to constitute a 'full-time week' for fixed-term employees.

The employer terminated two correctional officers for alleged excessive use of force and related misconduct.

The employer sought to introduce post-termination evidence (media statements, correspondence, and a potential conflict of interest) for remedial purposes in the event the terminations were not upheld.

The union argued the evidence should be excluded or, alternatively, the hearing should be bifurcated.

The Grievance Settlement Board ruled that the post-termination evidence is admissible for remedial purposes, consistent with Ontario practice.

However, the Board granted the union's request to bifurcate the hearing, ordering that the post-termination evidence be heard only after a determination is made on whether there was just cause for the terminations.

In a grievance alleging unjust discipline and a poisoned work environment, the Union brought a motion for the disclosure of documents relating to a Workplace Discrimination and Harassment Prevention (WDHP) complaint filed by the grievor's supervisor against the same director.

The Employer opposed disclosure, arguing the documents constituted inadmissible similar fact evidence and were subject to a full and final settlement.

The Grievance Settlement Board granted the motion, holding that the documents were arguably relevant to the grievor's allegations of systemic discrimination and a poisoned work environment.

The Board distinguished between the threshold for disclosure and the stricter test for admissibility, which would be determined at a later stage.

The Union requested particulars and production of documents in a grievance arbitration, and the Employer requested that conditions be imposed on the provision of the same.

The Vice-Chair ordered the Employer to provide the requested particulars and documents, including investigation reports and police records, subject to strict confidentiality conditions.

The parties consented to the substance of the order.

The grievor, a Worker Advisor, suffered a compensable workplace injury and returned to work on permanent modified duties working half-days.

The Employer converted her status to part-time and reduced its contributions to her health and welfare benefits accordingly.

The Union grieved, arguing that under the collective agreement, an employee in receipt of a WSIB award is entitled to continued benefit subsidies at the full-time level regardless of a reduction in hours.

The Grievance Settlement Board agreed, finding that the specific collective agreement provision protected the grievor's full-time benefit entitlements.

The Board also found the grievor was entitled to full salary for the first 65 days of her absence and directed the parties to calculate the amounts owing.

In a grievance arbitration concerning allegations of a poisoned work environment, the Grievance Settlement Board issued a consent order requiring the Union to provide particulars to the Employer by a specified date.

The grievor, a correctional officer, was terminated for using excessive force against an inmate, submitting an inaccurate occurrence report, and violating the Statement of Ethical Principles.

The incident involved three phases, culminating in the grievor delivering a distractive strike to the inmate's head while the inmate was restrained on the ground by several other officers.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the grievor was the aggressor, the force used was excessive and unauthorized, and his occurrence report was deliberately incomplete and inaccurate.

The termination grievance was dismissed.

A separate grievance regarding unreasonable delay in the investigation process was partially allowed, with the grievor awarded compensation for one month of delay.

The Union filed grievances challenging the Employer's decision to change the grievor's status from full-time to part-time and the resulting changes to her pay and benefits, including the continuation of pension contributions under article 42.3 of the collective agreement.

The Employer raised a preliminary objection, arguing that the Grievance Settlement Board lacked jurisdiction to determine the grievor's entitlement to pension contributions because it required a determination of her eligibility for Long Term Income Protection (LTIP) benefits, which falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Joint Insurance Benefits Review Committee (JIBRC).

The Vice-Chair upheld the preliminary objection, finding that the threshold question of LTIP eligibility must be resolved by the JIBRC, and therefore the Board lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate this aspect of the grievances.

The union filed grievances on behalf of ten Client Services Representatives (OAG 8) claiming they should be paid at the higher OAG 11 rate because an employee temporarily assigned to their role from a Trial Coordinator position continued to receive the higher rate pursuant to the collective agreement.

One grievor also claimed the employer improperly delayed her placement into a new position won through competition.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievances, finding no support in the collective agreement for the grievors' claim to the higher wage rate while performing their regular duties.

The Board also found that the delayed placement issue was not captured by the earlier grievance.

The grievor, an active union representative, alleged that the Employer discriminated against and harassed him due to his union activities.

He claimed this was evidenced by the Employer changing his work schedule and sending him home when he returned from a medical leave without a medical note certifying his fitness to work.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievances, finding that the schedule change was implemented for legitimate operational reasons to align with client hours, and that the requirement for a medical note was a standard practice justified by the lack of specific medical information regarding the grievor's fitness and need for accommodation.

The Board concluded there was no evidence of anti-union animus.

The Union sought disclosure of documents relating to the determination of an employee's entitlement to Long Term Income Protection (LTIP) benefits and rehabilitative employment benefits.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the Employer to disclose documents regarding LTIP benefits, including its contract with Manulife Financial, but declined to order disclosure regarding rehabilitative employment benefits at this time.

The Union filed a grievance alleging that the Employer compromised the integrity of the bargaining unit by allowing outside contractors (Toledo-Mettler staff) to direct commercial vehicles through weigh scales during maintenance and testing.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the contractors were performing maintenance and testing rather than the enforcement duties normally performed by Transportation Enforcement Officers.

The Board also concluded that the volume of work performed by the contractors was de minimis.