Nimal Dissanayake

Following a finding that the employer discriminated against the grievor by failing to accommodate his disability and acted in bad faith by declaring his position surplus, the Grievance Settlement Board determined the appropriate remedies.

The Board declined to order reinstatement to the grievor's former position, awarding $8,000 in lieu thereof.

The Board further awarded $20,000 in general damages for the human rights breach and $25,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

Claims for Wallace damages and punitive damages were dismissed.

The union filed grievances alleging the employer failed to make reasonable provisions for safety and health following an incident at the Toronto South Detention Centre.

The employer brought a motion to dismiss two grievances for failure to prosecute and raised concerns about the union's failure to comply with a prior Board order regarding disclosure and particulars.

The union withdrew one grievance and requested time to seek instructions on the other.

The Grievance Settlement Board directed the union to advise whether it would pursue the remaining grievance and ordered the union to provide all outstanding disclosure and particulars by a specified date, failing which it would be precluded from leading evidence on related assertions.

The union filed grievances on behalf of several employees claiming they should have received overtime pay at double time for time spent waiting at an airport to be deployed to a wildfire on a statutory holiday.

The employer paid them straight time travel pay.

The Grievance Settlement Board applied the test of whether the employees were essentially responsibility free during the travel period.

Finding that the employees were not engaged in work during the waiting time, the Board dismissed the grievances.

The union referred a grievance regarding a letter of counsel to arbitration.

At the hearing, the union also sought to litigate a second grievance regarding workplace accommodation.

The employer objected, arguing the accommodation grievance had been settled and withdrawn, and the letter of counsel grievance was inarbitrable as the letter was non-disciplinary.

The Board found that the accommodation grievance had indeed been withdrawn by the union following an agreement on an accommodation plan.

Furthermore, the Board held that the letter of counsel was non-disciplinary and therefore inarbitrable.

The Board rejected the union's attempt to expand the scope of the letter of counsel grievance to include allegations of discrimination and failure to accommodate, finding it would constitute an improper expansion.

Both grievances were dismissed.

The employer brought a motion to strike certain particulars provided by the union in relation to individual grievances filed by six correctional officers who were trapped in a room due to a computer malfunction.

The employer argued the particulars constituted an undue expansion of the original grievances.

The Grievance Settlement Board partially granted the motion, striking particulars that alleged general risks of forcible confinement and risks to inmates, as they were not inherent in the original individual grievances, while allowing evidence of such risks to be led at the remedial phase if relevant to the impact on the grievors.

The union filed grievances alleging the employer violated the collective agreement and the Occupational Health and Safety Act by revoking the 'conservation officer' designation for Agriculture Investigators, which resulted in the removal of their side-arms and pepper spray.

After the union closed its case, the employer moved for a non-suit.

Applying the standard that a non-suit must be denied if there is some evidence to support a prima facie case, the Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the employer's motion.

Pursuant to the parties' agreement, the Board provided no reasons for its conclusion.

The union requested disclosure of audio files, video footage, and a map of the Orangeville courthouse in relation to the grievor's termination.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the employer to produce the audio and video files subject to strict confidentiality conditions.

The Board also ordered the employer to produce the courthouse map to union counsel only, denying the request to provide copies to the union representative and the grievor due to security concerns, noting that they were already familiar with the layout.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued a procedural ruling on the order of proceedings in a grievance alleging termination without just cause and discrimination.

The employer bore the onus on the termination issue, while the union bore the onus on the discrimination allegations.

The union sought to sever the discrimination issues to be heard first, while the employer sought to bifurcate the termination issue to be heard first.

The Vice-Chair rejected both positions and ordered that all issues be heard together without bifurcation.

The employer was directed to proceed first with its evidence on termination, followed by the union's response and evidence on discrimination, followed by reply evidence.

In a grievance concerning whether certain employees were excluded from the bargaining unit following an employer restructuring that eliminated 'HR Ontario', the parties disputed the order of proceeding and the burden of proof.

The Grievance Settlement Board declined to determine the onus of proof as a preliminary matter, reserving it until all evidence was heard.

However, the Board ordered the employer to proceed first with its evidence, finding that the employer possessed the specific and complete information regarding the restructuring and the duties of the individuals in question, making it fairer and more efficient for the employer to present its case first.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to bifurcate the proceeding, arguing that the Board should first determine its motion that the Board was functus officio regarding the scope of the bargaining unit before hearing the merits of the grievance relating to the inclusion/exclusion of seven specific positions.

The union opposed bifurcation.

The Board reviewed the arbitral jurisprudence on bifurcation and concluded that while the preliminary issue was separate and distinct from the merits, bifurcating the proceeding would not result in any saving of time or resources, nor would it dispose of the entire grievance.

The Board declined to exercise its discretion to bifurcate the proceeding and directed that all issues be heard together.

The union filed six grievances on behalf of the grievor alleging harassment, discrimination, and other violations.

The grievor failed to attend the scheduled arbitration hearing, and union counsel suggested this was due to mental health issues.

The employer requested orders for particulars and medical evidence to substantiate the grievor's inability to participate.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the union to provide medical evidence from the grievor's treating psychiatrist if she claims inability to participate due to health issues, and to provide full particulars and disclosure at least 10 days before the next scheduled hearing date.

At the commencement of a grievance arbitration hearing regarding a poisoned work environment, several grievors failed to attend.

The employer moved for an order requiring the non-attending grievors to advise whether they intended to pursue their grievances and to provide reasons for their absence.

The employer also requested an order for additional particulars.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the non-attending grievors to advise if they wished to pursue their grievances and provide explanations for their absence by a specified date, failing which their grievances would be dismissed.

The Board also ordered the union to provide the requested additional particulars.

The grievor requested a day of special/compassionate leave with pay under the collective agreement to assist his mother in preparing for his father's memorial service, which was scheduled for the following day (a Saturday).

The employer denied the request, noting that the memorial service itself was on a non-working day and that the grievor's absence on the Friday would impact operations.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the employer considered all relevant information and that its distinction between attending a religious/cultural service and assisting with preparations for one was not unreasonable.

The employer's exercise of discretion was upheld.

The grievor, a court reporter, requested special/compassionate leave with pay after being unable to attend work due to a severe ice storm that caused a power outage at her home and disrupted transportation.

The employer denied the request, citing that other employees had managed to attend work and that some buses were running.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the employer failed to exercise its discretion reasonably, as it did not consider the grievor's specific circumstances or verify whether transportation was actually available from her residence.

The grievance was allowed, and the day was ordered to be treated as special/compassionate leave with pay.

The grievor grieved the employer's denial of her request for special/compassionate leave with pay to attend a medical appointment.

The employer requested additional information to assess whether special or compassionate grounds existed, such as whether alternatives were considered.

The grievor did not provide the requested information.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the employer's decision-making process was not unreasonable given the information available, and that the employer did not improperly consider the grievor's accumulated vacation credits in denying the leave.

The union grieved the employer's denial of a request for special/compassionate leave with pay.

The grievor requested the day off to participate in a teleconference to plan a commemoration event for her deceased brother.

The employer met with the grievor, considered the reasons for the request, and denied the leave.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the employer had sufficient and relevant information and that its decision-making process was reasonable.

The grievance was dismissed.

The union filed a grievance alleging harassment and failure to provide a healthy and safe work environment.

The employer raised preliminary objections to certain particulars filed by the union, arguing they related to a previously settled grievance and to post-grievance conduct.

The Grievance Settlement Board upheld the employer's objections, striking the particulars.

The Board held that the sanctity of settlements precluded the union from resurrecting issues from a withdrawn grievance, even without explicit release language.

Furthermore, the post-grievance conduct involving a different manager nine months later was deemed inadmissible as it could not establish a pattern of harassment relevant to the original grievance.

The grievor sought special and compassionate leave under the collective agreement to care for her sick child after the daycare refused to accept him.

The employer denied the leave for the second day of absence, questioning the grievor about alternative childcare arrangements and suggesting she use vacation credits or take unpaid leave.

The Grievance Settlement Board upheld the grievance, finding that the employer failed to properly exercise its discretion.

The Board held that while inquiring about alternative childcare was relevant, the employer ignored the grievor's responses and improperly considered the availability of vacation credits, which the collective agreement explicitly stated should not affect the granting of such leave.

The union filed grievances on behalf of Transportation Enforcement Officers alleging that the employer violated the collective agreement by designating the 407 Electronic Toll Road as a separate district for overtime distribution.

The union argued that this designation unfairly deprived officers in adjacent districts of overtime opportunities, relying on the test for discretionary management decisions.

The employer maintained that the designation was a valid exercise of management rights made for legitimate billing and operational reasons.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievances, finding that the employer's decision was made in good faith for legitimate business reasons and did not violate the collective agreement's requirement for fair and equitable overtime distribution within a local workplace.

The union filed two group grievances on behalf of courtroom registrars employed as flexible part-time staff.

The first grievance sought reimbursement for the cost of cleaning robes, which the employer had ceased paying.

The second grievance alleged that the employer failed to distribute overtime hours fairly and equitably.

The arbitrator dismissed both grievances, finding no provisions in the collective agreement that conferred a right to reimbursement for cleaning robes or a right to fair and equitable distribution of overtime for flexible part-time employees.