Nimal Dissanayake

In a grievance arbitration concerning a job posting for a Senior Economist position, the parties engaged in settlement discussions but did not resolve the grievance.

The arbitrator issued an interim order requiring all parties, including the grievor and the incumbent, to keep all information relating to the grievance, including the Association's book of documents, strictly confidential and to use it only for the proceeding before the Board.

The union filed a grievance alleging the employer incorrectly calculated the grievor's merit date following a salary progression freeze.

The employer raised preliminary objections based on delay, failure to disclose a prima facie breach, and res judicata.

The arbitrator issued a procedural order setting a timeline for the exchange of particulars and evidence regarding the delay issue ahead of the scheduled hearing on the preliminary objections.

The Association filed a grievance alleging the employer failed to accommodate the grievor's request to telework five days a week in 2024.

Prior to the hearing on the merits, the Association sought production of documents relating to the employer's handling of the grievor's previous accommodation requests between 2018 and 2023.

The employer objected, arguing the documents were irrelevant and barred by the Board's three-year rule.

The Arbitrator dismissed the request for production, finding that the historical documents were not arguably relevant to the specific 2024 decision made by a different manager, and lacked a clear nexus to the positions in dispute.

The employer brought a motion for pre-hearing disclosure of the grievor's complete medical file in a dispute regarding the duty to accommodate.

The employer argued that by seeking accommodation, the grievor put her health in issue, entitling the employer to full medical disclosure.

The Association opposed the request, arguing the employer already had sufficient medical information detailing the grievor's restrictions and that the request was a fishing expedition.

The Arbitrator applied the West Park Hospital factors and dismissed the motion, finding no nexus between the request for the entire medical file and the issue in dispute, as the employer had already accepted the grievor's medical restrictions and did not allege bad faith.

During a grievance arbitration, the parties held a conference call to discuss issues regarding the production of the grievor's medical records.

The parties agreed to terms for the production of files from several doctors and requested that the agreement be issued as a consent order.

The Arbitrator issued the consent order, requiring the union to make best efforts to produce the specified medical records by October 31, 2025, subject to certain conditions regarding confidentiality and relevance.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss a grievance filed by a correctional officer, arguing it was barred by a Memorandum of Settlement (MOS) signed in 2019 for five other grievances.

The employer relied on a broad release clause in the MOS that discharged all claims arising out of the grievor's employment up to the date of the agreement.

The union argued the release clause should be read in the context of the specific grievances listed in the MOS.

The arbitrator upheld the employer's motion, finding the plain language of the release clause clearly intended to release all grievances up to the date of the MOS, including the instant grievance which pre-dated the settlement.

The union filed a grievance alleging the employer violated the collective agreement and the Occupational Health and Safety Act by unilaterally changing the fire-retardant clothing provided to inspectors.

The grievor argued the new insulated coveralls were less comfortable and harder to use than the previous lightweight coveralls and winter jacket.

The Arbitrator dismissed the health and safety claims, finding the new clothing provided adequate protection and the grievor's concerns were based on preference rather than safety.

However, the Arbitrator found the employer violated article 9.4 of the collective agreement by changing the established practice regarding apparel without consulting or reaching an agreement with the union.

A declaration of breach was issued.

In a grievance alleging failure to accommodate by not returning the grievor to work in a timely fashion, the Employer sought disclosure of the grievor's doctor's clinical notes.

The grievor consented to the disclosure.

The doctor provided redacted notes.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the doctor to produce a full and unredacted copy of her clinical notes to Union counsel within 30 days, failing which a Summons Duces Tecum may be issued.

The Union filed a grievance alleging the Employer failed to accommodate the grievor by not returning him to work in a timely fashion.

During the proceedings, the Union sought disclosure of all documents in the Employer's possession relating to a specific WSIB claim.

The Arbitrator ordered the Employer to produce the requested documents no later than 30 days before the next scheduled hearing date.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss two grievances alleging workplace harassment, arguing they were barred by a prior Memorandum of Settlement (MOS) and the principle of the sanctity of grievance settlements.

The arbitrator found that the release clause in the MOS explicitly applied only to circumstances up to the date of signing, and the new grievances concerned a subsequent incident.

The employer's primary motion was denied.

However, the arbitrator upheld the employer's alternate motion, ruling that the union could not lead evidence relating to the prior settled grievances as background or context, as doing so would undermine the sanctity of the settlement.

The union filed a grievance alleging the employer violated the collective agreement regarding a job competition.

At the commencement of the hearing, the parties disagreed on the extent of disclosure.

The arbitrator ordered the employer to produce redacted copies of applications, interview records, and appraisals of interviewed applicants, with unique identifiers.

The information is restricted to this proceeding and must be destroyed at its conclusion.

The employer requested an order compelling the union to provide written particulars and production, as the union had not complied with a prior undertaking to do so by March 21, 2025.

The union did not oppose the request.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the union to provide its written particulars and full production no later than May 14, 2025.

The parties appeared before the Grievance Settlement Board for a case management hearing.

With the arbitrator's assistance, the parties agreed on terms and timelines for the provision of particulars, a list of remedies, and document disclosure, including medical records.

The arbitrator issued a consent order reflecting the agreed-upon schedule in preparation for the resumption of the hearing.

At a case management hearing, the parties agreed on timelines for the submission of particulars and production regarding the termination of the grievor's employment.

The arbitrator issued a consent order directing the employer to provide disclosure by December 2, 2024, the union to provide full written particulars by December 16, 2024, and the employer to advise of any preliminary motions by February 28, 2025.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss a grievance on the basis that it was filed beyond the 30-day time limit set out in the Labour Relations Act.

The union argued that the employer had waived its right to object by taking fresh steps in the grievance process, including participating in a Formal Resolution Stage meeting, issuing a denial letter, and engaging in mediation, without raising the timeliness issue until two days before the hearing.

The arbitrator found that the grievance was indeed filed late.

However, the arbitrator held that the employer had waived its right to object to the late filing by failing to raise the issue at the earliest opportunity, despite a general reservation of rights.

The employer's motion was denied.

The Association filed complaints alleging the employer contravened the collective agreement by limiting requests for alternative work arrangements to work remotely at home.

The parties agreed upon a consent order setting out continuation dates and timelines for process, including particulars and production.

The Board issued the consent order and remained seized with the complaints.

The union requested that two grievances regarding the employer's refusal to allow the grievor to work remotely be adjourned sine die due to the grievor's health issues.

The employer refused, arguing that undue delay would prejudice its ability to defend itself.

The arbitrator denied the request for an adjournment sine die, finding it should only be ordered when no other reasonable option is available.

Instead, the arbitrator ordered an extended timeline for the union to provide full particulars and disclosure, with provisions for further extensions if supported by medical certification.

The parties engaged in mediation regarding a grievance filed by Chris MacDonald but did not reach a settlement.

The Arbitrator issued procedural orders setting deadlines for the Employer to respond to the Union's settlement proposal, provide particulars of a timeliness motion, and produce outstanding disclosure including correspondence and the Audit and Inspection Handbook.

Deadlines were also set for drafting a partial agreed statement of facts.

The parties attempted to settle eight consolidated grievances through mediation but were unsuccessful.

The union undertook to provide particulars in preparation for arbitration but failed to do so by the agreed deadline.

Following a conference call hearing, the arbitrator ordered the union to provide full written particulars of the material facts on which it relies by a specified date, warning that failure to comply could result in the exclusion of evidence or dismissal of the grievances.

The union brought a motion arguing that the grievor's disciplinary termination was void ab initio because the employer violated his right to union representation under article 30.1 of the collective agreement during a meeting on March 12, 2022.

The grievor alleged that a Staff Sergeant confronted him with photographs of falsified COVID-19 test results and obtained an admission of guilt without offering union representation.

The employer denied that such a meeting occurred, asserting the Staff Sergeant only requested an Occurrence Report.

The Arbitrator preferred the employer's evidence, finding inconsistencies in the grievor's account and concluding that the alleged meeting did not take place.

The motion was dismissed, and the grievance was scheduled to proceed on its merits.