N. Dissanayake

In a grievance concerning a return to work following a divestment, the employer sought to adduce extrinsic evidence to disclose a latent ambiguity or establish an estoppel regarding a Memorandum of Understanding.

The union objected.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that it would hear the proposed extrinsic evidence before determining whether it discloses a latent ambiguity or establishes an estoppel, noting that the evidence was expected to be relatively brief.

The union grieved that an employee who volunteered and was scheduled in advance to work 5.5 hours on Remembrance Day was entitled to double time for a minimum of 8 hours under article 7.6 of the collective agreement, rather than double time for actual hours worked under article 7.4.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that article 7.6 was intended to apply to employees called in to work on short notice, whereas article 7.4 applied to employees scheduled in advance.

Applying article 7.6 to scheduled employees would render article 7.4 redundant.

The union applied for interim relief under s. 48(12) of the Labour Relations Act to revert to the old vacation protocol pending the disposition of a grievance challenging the employer's new province-wide vacation protocol for correctional officers.

The Grievance Settlement Board applied the two-fold test for interim relief.

Without deciding if there was an arguable case, the Board found the balance of harm favoured the employer, as reverting to the old protocol mid-year would cause significant administrative difficulties, require hiring and training new unclassified officers, and disrupt existing vacation plans, while only benefiting a minority of officers.

The motion for interim relief was denied.

The grievor, a probationary Customer Service Representative, was terminated after approximately five months of employment due to poor work performance in cashiering and computer techniques.

The union grieved the termination, arguing that the employer lacked just cause and violated the collective agreement by failing to provide union representation at a meeting where performance concerns were discussed.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the meeting was not disciplinary in nature and therefore did not trigger union representation rights.

The Board further held that the employer had met its onus of establishing just cause by demonstrating that the grievor was provided with adequate training, was made aware of her deficiencies, and was reasonably assessed as unsuitable for permanent employment.

The union brought a preliminary motion arguing that the discipline imposed on the grievor was void ab initio because the employer failed to comply with article 26.3 of the collective agreement.

The grievor was called to a meeting where he was handed a notice of intended discipline without prior notice of the meeting's purpose or his right to union representation.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the meeting triggered article 26.3 and that the employer breached the provision by failing to provide advance notice.

The discipline was declared void ab initio and the employer was directed to compensate the grievor.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of a correctional officer claiming that her underfill status should have been removed earlier, entitling her to be paid at the CO2 middle rate.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the grievance was inarbitrable because it was in substance a classification grievance.

The Grievance Settlement Board upheld the employer's objection, finding that a claim for higher pay based on an alleged right to have underfill status removed is essentially a claim for reclassification.

Under the Sectoral Framework Agreement and section 51 of the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act, classification grievances are inarbitrable.

The grievance was dismissed.

The grievor was discharged following a physical altercation with a co-worker.

The union filed the grievance past the time limits set out in the collective agreement.

The employer raised preliminary objections regarding arbitrability due to the delay and the unsigned grievance.

The arbitrator extended the time limits under s. 48(16) of the Labour Relations Act, finding the delay was short and the grievance involved a discharge, despite the union's negligence.

On the merits, the arbitrator found the grievor was the aggressor in the altercation.

Given the seriousness of workplace violence and the grievor's lack of remorse, the arbitrator upheld a substantial penalty, substituting the discharge with a suspension without pay for the period prior to his reinstatement.

In a supplementary decision to determine compensation following a finding that the employer failed to assign the grievor to an available position, the parties disputed the calculation of the grievor's mitigation income.

The grievor had started a consulting business that generated gross revenue but incurred greater expenses, resulting in a net loss.

The employer argued that gross revenue should be deducted from damages and challenged the reasonableness of the business expenses and the decision to continue the business for three years.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that it was not unreasonable to continue the business.

The Board allowed the home office and secretarial expenses, reduced the computer and mileage expenses, and disallowed promotional expenses related to sponsoring a hockey team.

The employer was directed to recalculate the allowable expenses and compensate the grievor accordingly.

The grievor, a corrections officer, was suspended without pay after being charged with sexual assault and breach of trust involving inmates.

The employer argued the suspension was authorized under s. 22(1) of the Public Service Act pending an investigation, or alternatively, that there was just cause due to bail conditions and workplace impact.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that s. 22(1) requires an internal employer investigation, not merely an independent police investigation.

Furthermore, applying the Phillips Cables test, the employer failed to establish just cause because it did not investigate the charges to assess the risk of conviction or demonstrate that the grievor's presence would cause substantial and immediate hardship.

The grievance was allowed, and the employer was ordered to compensate the grievor for lost wages and benefits during the suspension period.

The grievor, a Sikh correctional officer, alleged that the employer's facial hair policy was discriminatorily enforced.

The union argued that the policy was inconsistently applied because some employees were temporarily exempted for health reasons, and that this differential treatment between protected groups (health vs. creed) violated the collective agreement.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the policy was enforced in a substantially consistent manner and that providing temporary accommodation for health reasons did not obligate the employer to provide permanent accommodation for religious beliefs, which had previously been found to cause undue hardship.

The union filed grievances alleging that the employer failed to adequately respond to complaints of sexual harassment by two management employees, thereby contributing to a poisoned work environment.

The parties sought an interim ruling on whether the Grievance Settlement Board had jurisdiction to direct the employer to transfer or discharge the harassers.

The Board held that while discipline is generally an exclusive management function, it has the jurisdiction to order specific disciplinary action against a member of management if such an order is absolutely necessary to finally and effectively remedy the grievance.