Nimal V. Dissanayake

In a grievance regarding an unsuccessful job application, the union sought disclosure of certain documents.

The employer raised concerns that the documents contained confidential personal information of other employees.

The Vice-Chair confirmed an oral ruling directing the employer to disclose the documents, subject to a strict condition that the union and its counsel maintain utmost confidentiality and use the information solely for the purposes of the proceeding.

In a grievance concerning a job posting for a Product Consultant position, the union requested an order for particulars and production of documents from the employer.

The union alleged the employer was estopped from denying casual employees rights under the collective agreement due to past practice.

The employer opposed the request, arguing it was a fishing expedition and overly broad.

The Grievance Settlement Board granted the union's request in part, ordering the employer to produce specific documents and particulars relating to the alleged change in practice, finding the information arguably relevant and not a mere fishing expedition.

The union filed grievances claiming that casual employees should be granted seasonal status based on hours worked prior to the coming into effect of the new collective agreement, applying the new formula.

The employer argued that the new formula only applied to hours worked after the ratification date, resetting the hours bank to zero.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that the new formula did not apply retroactively, but hours worked under the old formula were not wiped out.

Employees could still achieve seasonal status if they met the requirements of the old formula, even if some weeks were worked after the new agreement came into effect.

The grievances were dismissed.

The grievor, a housekeeping employee with 18 years of service, grieved a five-day suspension imposed for allegedly spitting on a co-worker during an argument.

The employer and the union presented conflicting versions of the incident.

The arbitrator preferred the co-worker's evidence, corroborated by the immediate observation of spit by the Human Resources Manager, over the grievor's denials.

Finding that the grievor failed to take responsibility or show remorse, the arbitrator upheld the five-day suspension and dismissed the grievance.

The union filed a grievance regarding a job posting for a Product Consultant position.

At arbitration, the employer raised a preliminary objection that the collective agreement provision relied upon by the union only applied to entry-level positions, and thus the grievance was inarbitrable.

The union argued the employer was precluded from raising this objection at arbitration due to the doctrine of waiver, as it had not raised the issue during the grievance procedure.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that the employer's objection related to the grievor's entitlement to a substantive right, not a procedural defect.

Therefore, the doctrine of waiver did not apply, and the employer was permitted to proceed with its motion.

In a job competition grievance, the union sought an order for the production of the personnel files of all incumbents in the Product Consultant position.

The employer did not oppose the request.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the employer to produce the files as they were constituted on the date of the job competition, subject to a confidentiality directive.

The grievor, a probationary Conservation Officer/Detector Canine Handler, grieved two one-day suspensions and his subsequent release from employment.

The first suspension for insubordination was upheld, as the grievor failed to follow clear instructions regarding the overnight care of his canine partner after surgery.

The second suspension for alleged deceitful conduct was dismissed, as the employer failed to prove intent to deceive.

The grievance regarding the probationary release was dismissed.

The Board found that the employer's decision to release the grievor under section 22(5) of the Public Service Act was not made in bad faith, nor was it unreasonable or irrational, given the unique demands of the canine handler position and the grievor's failure to fully commit to its requirements, including relocating his family to the required district.

The employer brought a motion to dismiss five grievances on the grounds that the union failed to provide particulars in compliance with a prior Board order.

The Board reviewed the particulars provided by the union for each grievance.

The Board found that the union failed to provide sufficient particulars for two group grievances (the 'Joan Gates' and 'Paul Wilson' grievances) and dismissed them.

However, the Board found that the particulars provided for three union grievances (regarding meal breaks, job postings/temporary assignments, and overtime payments) were sufficient to apprise the employer of the case it had to meet, and allowed those grievances to proceed, with evidence restricted to the particularized instances in one case.

The employer brought a motion for non-suit after the union closed its case in a grievance arbitration.

The Grievance Settlement Board reviewed the principles governing non-suit motions, noting that the responding party need only establish a prima facie case and that the moving party would not be put to an election in this instance.

Finding that the union had met the standard of a prima facie case, the Board dismissed the employer's motion for non-suit.

The grievor, a Programmer/Analyst, alleged that the employer discriminated against him on the basis of race by failing to provide him with a promised knowledge transfer for a new software application (RANDI).

The employer argued that the knowledge transfer was halted because the grievor lacked the necessary foundational skills in MS Access, and that its decisions were based on operational requirements and client feedback.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding no evidence that the employer's actions, even if flawed or unfair, were tainted by racial discrimination.

A group grievance was filed by 28 employees alleging the employer violated the collective agreement by paying staff performing the same 'vehicle resolve work' on temporary assignment at different rates of pay.

During mediation-arbitration, the union acknowledged that the employer's compensation method complied with article 8 of the collective agreement.

Consequently, the union conceded there was no dispute, and the grievance was dismissed.

The grievor, an Income Support Specialist, filed two grievances alleging discrimination on the basis of creed and improper exercise of management rights.

The employer had directed her to stop handing out pens with scripture attached as Christmas gifts and issued a letter of counsel directing her to refrain from religious-based conversations and invitations in the workplace.

Another letter of counsel was issued regarding an allegation of racial profiling.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievances, finding that the letters of counsel were non-disciplinary and that the employer's actions were a reasonable exercise of management rights.

The Board also held that the right to hand out religious gifts or make religious invitations at work is not a protected religious practice under the Human Rights Code, and therefore no discrimination occurred.

The union referred a previously settled grievance back to arbitration.

The employer requested particulars regarding the union's claim, as it was unaware of the specific dispute.

The union did not dispute the employer's right to particulars.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the union to provide written particulars detailing its claim and any alleged non-compliance with the minutes of settlement by December 1, 2006, with the hearing scheduled to continue on February 5, 2007.

The grievor filed a grievance alleging the employer failed to accommodate her medical condition.

At the mediation-arbitration hearing, it was disclosed that the grievor was accommodated once her request was medically substantiated, she had executed minutes releasing claims related to her illness, and she had left her employment.

The union advised it had no dispute with the employer, and the grievance was dismissed.

The union filed grievances alleging that the employer's decision to temporarily assign only Water Group Leaders as Acting Geoscientist 4, and not Air Quality Analysts, was arbitrary, discriminatory, and motivated by improper considerations including reprisal for union activity.

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

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the motion, finding that the union had met the low threshold of presenting 'some evidence' to support its claims, thereby requiring the employer to answer the case.

The grievor, a liquor store manager, was previously reinstated subject to strict terms akin to a last chance agreement.

He was discharged after arriving nearly two hours late for a shift on a busy holiday weekend and failing to notify management.

The union argued the lateness was innocent absenteeism caused by sedation from taking Tylenol for a recurrence of a back injury.

The arbitrator rejected this explanation, finding the grievor's testimony regarding the amount of Tylenol taken to be inconsistent and not credible, and noting that Tylenol does not cause sedation.

The arbitrator also found the grievor's failure to notify management unacceptable.

As the grievor's conduct was culpable and gave cause for discipline, the discharge was upheld under the terms of the prior reinstatement.

The union filed grievances alleging that the employer unreasonably exercised its management right to schedule and assign work, which prevented casual employees from attaining seasonal status.

The collective agreement required casual employees to work 35 hours or more per week for 14 consecutive weeks to achieve seasonal status.

The employer scheduled frequent inventory counts, during which casual employees were scheduled for only four hours, breaking their consecutive weeks.

The union argued there was an implied duty for the employer to exercise its scheduling rights reasonably.

The arbitrator assumed without finding that such a duty existed, but concluded that the employer did not act unreasonably, as the inventory schedules were based on legitimate business considerations to ensure accurate stock counts.

The grievances were dismissed.

The grievor, a liquor store manager, was discharged after failing to open the store on time.

The union brought a motion arguing the discharge was void ab initio because the employer failed to provide union representation during a telephone call between the grievor and the District Manager, allegedly in violation of article 26.3 of the collective agreement.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the motion, finding that the brief telephone call, in which the manager merely asked why the store was not open, was an administrative inquiry rather than an investigatory meeting that could result in discipline.

In an interim decision during a grievance arbitration, the union sought an adjournment to contact individuals and recall an employer witness for further cross-examination.

The union argued it was surprised by the witness's denial of having complained to management about a co-worker.

The employer objected, asserting the union had prior notice of the denial.

The Vice-Chair reviewed the hearing notes and concluded the union had been clearly informed during earlier cross-examination that the witness would deny the allegations.

Consequently, the union's request to recall the witness was denied.

The union filed individual and group grievances claiming the employer violated the collective agreement by failing to extend a weekend shift premium negotiated for the correctional bargaining unit to employees at the Whitby Mental Health Centre.

At the hearing, the union advised it was not pursuing the grievances further.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievances.