Nimal Dissanayake

The employer brought a preliminary motion objecting to the Board's jurisdiction on the basis that the union's referral to arbitration was untimely.

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

The Board found that the employer failed to raise the timeliness objection regarding the referral for approximately one year, during which time it engaged in discussions about the merits, sought particulars, and scheduled arbitration dates.

The Board concluded these actions constituted a 'fresh step', thereby waiving the employer's right to rely on the time limits.

The employer's motion was dismissed and the grievance was ruled arbitrable.

The Union filed a grievance alleging the Employer violated the collective agreement by prorating merit increases for employees who moved to a new salary schedule mid-year.

The Employer argued that employees were only eligible for merit increases for the six months they were not at the maximum of their salary range.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the collective agreement explicitly provided for prorating of pay for performance but contained no such language for merit increases.

The Board concluded that the Employer violated the collective agreement by limiting the merit increase entitlement and ordered that the affected employees be made whole.

The complainant, a Financial Analyst, grieved his transfer to a new ministry, alleging discrimination based on disability and bad faith surplussing.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the employer failed to accommodate the complainant's mental health disability, ignoring medical recommendations for altered hours due to suspicions that he was faking his illness.

Furthermore, the Board concluded that the employer's decision to declare the complainant's position surplus was not a bona fide exercise of management rights, but rather a bad faith attempt to remove a difficult employee.

The grievances were allowed on liability.

The employer requested an order for particulars and disclosure regarding a group grievance filed by Probation and Parole Officers.

The union requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing to obtain the necessary information.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the union to provide particulars and make disclosure by March 20, 2015, failing which the grievance would be dismissed.

The union filed a policy grievance alleging the employer violated the collective agreement by failing to post a full-time vacancy, relying instead on an unwritten job share agreement.

The union argued the job share agreement was invalid because it was not in writing.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that article 10.2.1 of the collective agreement did not explicitly require job share agreements to be in writing to be valid.

The Board concluded there was a valid meeting of the minds between the employees, the union, and the employer, and the employer had complied with the applicable provisions when offering the full-time position to the remaining job share employee.

The employer brought a motion to limit the scope of the grievance at arbitration.

The grievor had been overpaid while on sick leave, and the employer sought to recoup the overpayment.

The original grievance and discussions during the grievance procedure focused on the employer's right to recoup the overpayment, given that the error was made by management.

At arbitration, the union attempted to argue that the grievor was entitled to full pay and that there was no overpayment.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that this was a new issue not inherent in the original grievance and could not be raised at arbitration.

The employer's motion was granted.

The union filed a grievance alleging that the grievor was arbitrarily transferred to a new position and that his duties were changed, claiming age discrimination and bad faith exercise of management rights.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the grievance for failing to disclose a prima facie case.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the union's assertions, even if accepted as true, did not provide objective facts capable of supporting an inference of age discrimination or bad faith.

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

Following a policy grievance decision issued on December 10, 2013, the parties convened to address implementation issues pursuant to article 22.16 of the collective agreement.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the Employer to comply with the previous decision by February 2, 2015, and determined that the decision applies to all institutions within the relevant ministries.

The Board also ruled that there would be no retroactive remedial entitlement prior to February 2, 2015.

The employer brought a motion to dismiss 39 individual grievances for failing to disclose a prima facie case.

The grievances alleged that a "New Year New Outlook" presentation delivered by management violated the collective agreement and the Human Rights Code.

The presentation contained images of poverty in the developing world and compared them to "trivial" problems in the developed world, which the grievors found offensive, condescending, and anti-union.

The Grievance Settlement Board upheld the employer's motion and dismissed the grievances.

The Board found that the union failed to assert facts capable of establishing that any of the grievors possessed a protected characteristic under the Code, that the harassment was based on a protected ground, or that any grievor suffered a disadvantage because of union activity.

The union filed a policy grievance alleging the employer contravened salary note G29 by denying wage increases to nine employees who performed work for the Aviation and Forest Fire Management Branch during the 2011 fire season.

The employees held home positions outside the Fire Branch.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that the clear language of the salary note attached the wage increases to positions 'in the Aviation and Forest Fire Management Branch', and therefore did not apply to employees whose home positions were elsewhere in the Ministry.

The parties appeared before the Grievance Settlement Board regarding two individual grievances.

During the hearing, the parties dealt with preliminary and procedural issues, including timelines for production and particulars.

The parties agreed to a consent order regarding the disclosure of the grievor's medical information, subject to conditions ensuring confidentiality, limited access, and secure destruction of the documents at the close of the proceeding.

The Board issued the consent order as agreed.

The parties entered into a Memorandum of Settlement (MOS) to resolve several disputes, which included a provision for the employer to reimburse the complainant up to $5,000 for mutually agreed-upon educational courses relevant to her current or future roles.

The complainant sought approval for a master's certificate in Public Sector Management, which the employer denied on the basis that it was intended for current managers and executives.

The arbitrator, remaining seized of the MOS, found that the proposed course was a reasonable fit within the contemplation of the MOS given the complainant's goal of advancing to management.

The employer was directed to approve the course.

The union filed a grievance regarding a wage deduction of $23,863.02 for an alleged overpayment.

In a preliminary motion, the union sought production of a July 2011 letter written to the grievor by her former manager.

The employer objected to its production.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the employer to produce the letter, finding it arguably relevant to the issues and subject to production even if it had been removed from the grievor's personnel file pursuant to a previous settlement.

The union filed a policy grievance alleging the employer failed to recognize certain positions as falling within the bargaining unit.

The parties asked the Board to interpret the recognition clause.

The Board held that the recognition clause did not create an 'all employee' bargaining unit, but was limited to the classifications specified in the schedules or developed under article 9.

However, the Board found that the general exclusion of 'office and technical staff' was inserted by mistake during drafting and did not reflect the parties' agreement.

The Board applied the doctrine of rectification to remove the general exclusion of office and technical staff from the collective agreement.

During a group grievance arbitration alleging the employer failed to make reasonable provisions for the health and safety of Environmental Officers, the union sought disclosure of a Crown brief from a related prosecution under the Nutrient Management Act.

The Crown consented to disclosure but required an order from the Board due to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Board ordered the production of the Crown brief subject to conditions restricting its use to the arbitration and requiring the redaction of irrelevant third-party personal information.

The union filed grievances on behalf of two employees who were required by the employer to provide medical certificates for sick leave absences of less than five days.

The employer argued it had a reasonable suspicion of sick leave abuse based on a pattern of absences.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that while the employer has the discretion to require medical certificates for short absences where abuse is suspected, it failed to properly exercise that discretion.

The employer did not meaningfully consider the individual circumstances of the grievors or seek their input before making the decision.

The Board upheld the grievances, declaring that the employer violated the collective agreement by improperly exercising its discretion and by withholding sick pay pending receipt of the medical certificates.

The union sought an adjournment of the hearing, which the employer opposed.

The Vice-Chair granted the adjournment on the condition that the hearing continue on May 28, 2014.

The union filed 53 identically worded grievances on behalf of Pay and Benefits Specialists, alleging violations of the collective agreement and the Occupational Health and Safety Act due to increased duties following the introduction of a new software system.

The employer brought a motion to dismiss the grievances for failing to disclose a prima facie case and for being disguised classification grievances.

The Grievance Settlement Board upheld the employer's motion, finding that the facts asserted could not substantiate a prima facie violation and that the true substance of the grievances was a request for upward reclassification, which the Board has no jurisdiction to order under section 51 of the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act.

The union filed a policy grievance alleging that the employer violated the collective agreement by ceasing its practice of providing formal disclosure when increasing the complement of existing positions.

The union argued that an increase in complement constituted the creation of a "new position" under article 1.4, triggering disclosure obligations.

The employer maintained that the disclosure obligation only applied when a completely new position was created.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that reading the provision in context and applying canons of interpretation supported the employer's position.

The arbitrator noted that the union's interpretation would lead to absurd results and an unreasonable administrative burden.

The Union filed a policy grievance regarding the overtime pay entitlement of unslotted Fixed Term Correctional Officers (FTE/COs) at the Vanier Centre for Women.

The Union argued that when a FTE/CO fills in for a Regular Full Time Correctional Officer and works beyond the scheduled shift hours, they are entitled to overtime under article 31A.3.1(b) of the collective agreement.

The Employer contended that FTE/COs do not have regularly scheduled work days and thus fall under a different provision requiring them to exceed 40 hours a week for overtime.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that because the shifts themselves are regularly scheduled under a compressed work week agreement, a FTE/CO filling in for such a shift is working on a regularly scheduled work day.

The grievance was allowed, entitling FTE/COs to overtime pay for shift extensions.