Nimal Dissanayake

In a grievance arbitration concerning the termination of a correctional officer, the union brought a motion to exclude evidence relating to the grievor's alleged associations with two inmates.

The union argued this evidence constituted an impermissible expansion of the grounds for termination beyond those stated at the time of discharge.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the motion, finding that the evidence fell within the broad scope of the original allegation regarding improper relationships with ministry clients.

The Board also held that the employer had provided sufficient particulars in a timely manner, ensuring the grievor was not denied a fair opportunity to defend against the allegations.

The union filed a policy grievance alleging the employer violated multiple provisions of the collective agreement during a surplussing process.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the employer did not violate the Memorandum of Agreement on transformations, as the surplussing was not caused by a transformation of programs.

However, the Board declared that the employer violated the collective agreement by failing to provide adequate reasons for surplussing decisions to the union president, failing to provide simultaneous notice to the union, failing to provide 'as much notice as possible' to affected employees, and failing to offer required information on severance, employee portfolios, and employment insurance.

The union filed a policy grievance regarding the employer's failure to recognize certain positions as bargaining unit positions.

The employer brought a preliminary motion arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction because the union referred the grievance to arbitration outside the mandatory time limits.

The union conceded the referral was late but argued the employer waived its right to object.

The Board found that the employer continued to discuss the merits of the grievance with the union for over two years without ever raising the timeliness issue, only objecting on the eve of the arbitration hearing.

The Board concluded the employer's conduct amounted to a waiver of the time limits and dismissed the employer's motion.

The employer brought a motion to dismiss the union's grievance on the basis that the particulars failed to establish a prima facie case of a collective agreement violation.

The grievance alleged violations of several articles, including bad faith in the exercise of management rights and loss of on-call pay due to a change in the grievor's position.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the collective agreement did not obligate the employer to assign on-call duty, and the particulars did not disclose objective facts capable of establishing bad faith.

The employer's motion was granted and the grievance was dismissed.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of a Probation and Parole Officer who received a three-day suspension without pay for violating Ministry policies regarding note-taking, case recording, offender supervision, and internet security.

The employer argued the suspension was justified given the serious nature of the violations.

The union contended that discipline was unwarranted or, alternatively, that the penalty was too harsh.

The arbitrator found just cause for discipline, noting the grievor's neglect of duties.

However, considering the grievor's 26 years of discipline-free service and his acceptance of responsibility, the arbitrator concluded the three-day suspension was disproportionate.

The grievance was allowed in part, with the suspension replaced by a written letter of warning and the grievor compensated for lost wages.

The employer brought two motions regarding the union's statement of particulars in a workplace harassment grievance.

First, the employer argued that res judicata prevented the union from adducing evidence of previously settled grievances regarding overtime and training.

The Board agreed, finding no special circumstances to pierce the sanctity of the prior settlements.

Second, the employer argued that certain allegations were untimely under the collective agreement's 30-day limit.

The Board dismissed this motion, applying the 'three-year rule' for harassment grievances, which allows evidence of a course of conduct over a longer period.

The Association filed grievances alleging that the Employer's reorganization, which eliminated Facilities Management Coordinator positions and created new Regional Planning & Business Advisor positions, was done in bad faith or, alternatively, that the new positions were substantially the same as the old ones.

The Employer brought a motion objecting to the Board's jurisdiction to hear the alternative argument, asserting the new positions were newly created and thus exempt from posting exceptions.

The Board dismissed the motion, finding it had jurisdiction to determine objectively whether the positions were substantially the same.

The Board also granted the Association's request for pre-hearing production of the new incumbents' work emails and calendars, limiting the scope to a three-month period to balance relevance against the Employer's burden.

The union filed individual grievances alleging the employer failed to pay call-back pay as required by the collective agreement.

The parties agreed to have the Grievance Settlement Board rule on a preliminary interpretative issue based on assumed facts regarding whether the grievors, who had flexible start times within a designated window, had a 'next scheduled shift' within the meaning of the call-back pay provision.

The Board adopted a purposive approach and concluded that the grievors did have a next scheduled shift, remitting the matter back to the parties.

In a grievance arbitration concerning the surplussing of employees and the creation of new positions, the union alleged the employer's reorganization was a bad faith scheme to 'clean house'.

The union sought disclosure of application materials and personnel files of the individuals selected for interviews and appointments to the new positions.

The employer opposed, arguing it amounted to an improper job competition grievance.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the disclosure, finding the requested materials were arguably relevant to the union's bad faith allegation and did not constitute a fishing expedition.

Three grievors challenged the employer's decision not to appoint them to Income Support Specialist positions following a job competition.

The union argued the selection process was flawed because the employer relied almost exclusively on interview scores and failed to consider past performance, resumes, personnel files, or conduct reference checks for all applicants.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the employer contravened the collective agreement by failing to properly assess all relevant information.

However, the Board declined to award monetary compensation because the union failed to provide evidence demonstrating that the grievors would have been relatively equal to the successful candidates had the process been conducted properly.

The union explicitly declined a re-run of the competition, so the Board issued a declaration of the breach with no further remedy.

The union filed grievances on behalf of two employees who were screened out of a job competition for Compliance Officer positions and denied interviews.

The union alleged the employer violated the collective agreement by failing to properly assess their qualifications and ability.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the employer's screening process, which required specific technical knowledge related to mining and mine rehabilitation, was fair and reasonable.

The Board declined to interfere with the employer's assessment of the application materials and dismissed the grievances.

The union filed a grievance alleging the employer violated the collective agreement by denying the grievor a Senior Administrative Clerk position following a job competition.

The employer relied solely on interview and practical test scores, failing to consider the grievor's successful performance in the position in an acting capacity or to conduct reference checks.

The Grievance Settlement Board found this sole reliance on interview scores violated the collective agreement.

Concluding that the grievor would have been found at least relatively equal to the successful candidate had her experience been properly assessed, the Board ordered the employer to appoint the grievor to the position retroactively and compensate her for lost earnings.

The employer moved to dismiss a discharge grievance on the basis that it was referred to arbitration outside the mandatory time limits set out in the collective agreement.

The union argued that the time limits were not triggered because the employer failed to hold a mandatory stage two meeting.

The Grievance Settlement Board followed its prior jurisprudence, holding that the employer's failure to hold a stage two meeting did not prevent the time limits for referral to arbitration from running.

As the grievance was referred to arbitration more than two years after it was filed, it was out of time.

The motion was granted and the grievance dismissed.

The grievor, a female correctional officer at a women's facility, requested an accommodation to be exempted from performing primary strip searches of female inmates due to medical restrictions related to stress and her sexual orientation.

The employer offered a temporary accommodation at an adjacent men's facility where she would not be required to perform primary strip searches but could perform all other duties.

The grievor declined, arguing she should be accommodated at her home facility and that the employer failed its procedural duty by not consulting her on options.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that the employer did not breach its procedural duty and that the offer of accommodation at the adjacent facility was reasonable, as it fully met her medical restrictions without loss of pay or status, thereby discharging the employer's duty to accommodate.

In a grievance arbitration concerning a transfer and subsequent surplussing, the employer sought full particulars before complying with the Association's request for document disclosure.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that a blanket assertion of inadequate particulars does not justify withholding arguably relevant documents.

The Board ordered the employer to comply with the disclosure request, noting that the employer could object to specific documents on grounds of privilege or confidentiality, and could seek specific particulars if needed.

The union brought a preliminary issue regarding the interpretation of article UN 8.2.1 of the collective agreement, which requires the employer to develop fair and equitable methods for distributing overtime.

The union argued this provision implicitly required the employer to provide records and documentation to verify compliance when overtime is assigned.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the union's argument, finding that the collective agreement could not be reasonably read to include a duty to provide the requested information, as doing so would improperly add to or expand the agreed-upon terms.

The union filed grievances alleging that IT systems officers were entitled to stand-by pay rather than on-call pay while on an after-hours rotation.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the grievances on the basis that the union's particulars did not disclose a prima facie case.

The collective agreement defined stand-by time as requiring an employee to be immediately available to return to the workplace.

The union argued that accessing the employer's network remotely constituted returning to the workplace.

The Grievance Settlement Board rejected this argument, finding that the language explicitly contemplated a physical return to the workplace.

As the union's particulars did not assert that the grievors were required to physically return to the workplace, the motion was granted and the grievances were dismissed.

In a grievance concerning a job competition, the parties asked the Grievance Settlement Board to determine a preliminary issue regarding the appropriate standard for assessing applicants.

The collective agreement provided a preference for AMAPCEO unit applicants where qualifications and ability were relatively equal.

The successful applicant, originally from outside the unit, acquired AMAPCEO unit status after the posting closed but before the final selection was made.

The Board held that an applicant's status must be determined as of the date the job posting closes, not the date of final selection, to ensure certainty and prevent potential manipulation of the process.

The grievor, an Employer Health Tax Field Auditor, suffered a rotator cuff injury and required workplace accommodation.

She alleged that the employer breached the collective agreement and the Ontario Human Rights Code by unreasonably delaying an ergonomic assessment and the implementation of its recommendations.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the employer acted promptly once medical substantiation was provided.

Although there was a minor administrative delay in ordering equipment, the employer's overall conduct was reasonable and did not constitute a failure to accommodate.

The grievance was dismissed.

The union filed a grievance alleging that the grievor's manager subjected him to a pattern of harassment and discrimination on the basis of disability.

At the conclusion of the union's case, the employer brought a motion for non-suit.

The Grievance Settlement Board applied the test for non-suit motions, assuming the union's evidence to be true and drawing all reasonable inferences in its favour.

The Board found that the evidence, which primarily consisted of the grievor's subjective belief that his manager's actions were malicious and his disagreement with her management style and interpretation of procedures, was insufficient to establish a prima facie case of harassment or discrimination.

The motion for non-suit was granted and the grievance was dismissed.