Nimal V. Dissanayake

The union filed grievances alleging that the employer discriminated against, harassed, and reprised against the grievor based on her religious beliefs.

After the union closed its case, the employer brought a motion for non-suit without electing whether to call evidence.

The Grievance Settlement Board applied the test for a non-suit, finding that the union had presented some evidence supporting the essential elements of its claim.

The employer's motion for non-suit was dismissed.

The union closed its case in a grievance alleging discrimination and harassment based on religious beliefs.

The employer indicated it would bring a motion for non-suit.

The union argued the employer should be put to an election as to whether it will lead evidence before the motion is entertained.

The Grievance Settlement Board reviewed its jurisprudence and concluded that it would not require an election unless the responding party could satisfy the Board that considerations of expedience versus fairness justified it.

Finding that the union had not met this onus, the Board allowed the employer to proceed with its non-suit motion without making an election.

The union requested the production of certain documents in advance of a scheduled hearing before the Grievance Settlement Board.

The Vice-Chair ordered the employer to produce copies of all notes made during the investigation that resulted in the grievor's discipline, including interviews with co-workers, conclusions made by the employer, names of interviewed employees, a copy of a note left on the complainant's locker, and any other undisclosed material in the investigation file.

The produced documents were ordered to be treated with confidentiality and used only for the proceeding.

The union sought an order for particulars and disclosure from the employer in relation to a job competition and promotion grievance.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the employer to provide the requested documents, including questionnaire score forms, personnel files, and relevant policies, subject to confidentiality conditions.

The employer brought a preliminary motion requesting that the union be ordered to provide particulars regarding a grievance added to the proceeding by agreement.

The grievance alleged violations of the collective agreement related to negative material on the grievor's file and alleged harassment.

The union did not dispute the employer's entitlement to particulars but cited difficulties obtaining information from the grievor.

The Grievance Settlement Board granted the motion, ordering the union to provide written particulars by a specified date to ensure fairness and allow the employer to prepare its defence.

The union filed a grievance alleging the employer violated the collective agreement regarding a vacation protocol and applied for interim relief.

The employer sought an order directing the union to provide further particulars of its case.

The Vice-Chair ordered the union to provide written particulars of the alleged violations, the adverse impact if interim relief is not granted, and the facts supporting its estoppel argument.

The employer was also ordered to provide particulars in response.

In a grievance arbitration regarding shift premiums, the employer sought to introduce extrinsic evidence of past practice and negotiating history to establish estoppel or a latent ambiguity.

The Grievance Settlement Board ruled that the employer's particulars regarding past practice, even if proven, would not establish estoppel or a latent ambiguity because they showed the union consistently protested the employer's practice rather than acquiescing to it.

The Board permitted the employer to introduce limited evidence of negotiating history to show changes in collective agreement language, despite the late filing of particulars, as it would not significantly prejudice the union.

The grievor was terminated for breaching a last chance agreement that required him not to exceed 10 days of absence per calendar year.

The union argued that a half-day absence when the grievor left work early due to illness should be considered an 'authorized leave of absence' and not count towards the 10-day limit.

The arbitrator held that leaving work early due to illness does not constitute an authorized leave under the agreement.

The arbitrator found the grievor breached the substantive condition of the agreement and declined to exercise the limited jurisdiction to substitute a lesser penalty, noting the infraction was not very minor.

The grievor, a probationary casual employee, was dismissed for alleged excessive infractions, absenteeism, and lateness.

The employer relied on a culminating incident of the grievor leaving work early due to a reported apartment break-in, along with past infractions that had previously been addressed through non-disciplinary counselling.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the employer failed to establish culpability for the culminating incident, as it did not investigate the grievor's reasons for leaving early or warn him that leaving would result in discharge.

Furthermore, the employer could not rely on past infractions for which it had already elected to use non-disciplinary counselling.

The grievance was allowed, and the grievor was reinstated with compensation.

The grievor failed to attend two scheduled hearing dates for his six grievances without providing adequate notice or justification.

The employer moved to dismiss the grievances for lack of prosecution.

The Grievance Settlement Board found the grievor's conduct to be an abuse of process and dismissed the grievances.

The union grieved the employer's decision to award a posted Investigator position to an external candidate rather than the grievor, who had performed the identical role for ten years.

The Grievance Settlement Board found the selection process fatally flawed because the employer relied almost entirely on interview scores, failed to assess the candidates' knowledge of specific environmental statutes required by the position specification, and ignored the grievor's past performance appraisals and supervisory references.

The grievance was allowed, and the employer was directed to re-run the competition among the original applicants.

The union filed a grievance claiming the grievor was entitled to a shift premium for hours worked on a paid holiday.

The employer argued the collective agreement was ambiguous and sought to introduce extrinsic evidence of past practice and negotiating history to establish a latent ambiguity or estoppel.

The union objected to the admission of extrinsic evidence, arguing the language was clear.

The Grievance Settlement Board found no patent ambiguity in the collective agreement.

However, to determine whether a latent ambiguity or estoppel existed, the Board directed the employer to provide detailed particulars of the proposed extrinsic evidence before ruling on its admissibility.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the grievances were inarbitrable classification grievances barred by the Local Appendix to the Social Framework Agreement and the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act.

The representative grievor claimed retroactive pay for a period between his promotion and the subsequent reclassification of his former position, which had resulted in his new position temporarily paying less than his former one.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the employer's objection, finding that because the proper classification had already been determined and implemented, the grievance was merely a dispute over the extent of retroactivity and compensation, not a classification grievance.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the grievances filed by the union were classification grievances and therefore inarbitrable under the Local Appendix to the Social Framework Agreement.

The union argued the grievances were for retroactive compensation and arbitrary exercise of management rights, not reclassification.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that claims requiring a determination of proper classification at a prior time were barred by the Local Appendix.

However, the Board retained jurisdiction over claims alleging arbitrary exercise of management rights regarding step increases and claims for retroactivity flowing from a previously ordered reclassification.

The grievor, a full-time employee working part-time hours under an accommodated work plan due to a disability, was denied paid sick leave because she did not work twenty consecutive days as required by the collective agreement.

The union grieved, arguing she met the requirement or, alternatively, that denying her sick leave violated the Ontario Human Rights Code.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that while the grievor did not meet the strict collective agreement requirement for full-time employees, applying that requirement to her constituted discrimination based on handicap.

The Board held that for the purposes of sick leave, the grievor must be compared to regular part-time employees and earn sick leave in proportion to the hours she worked.

The union brought a preliminary motion arguing that the grievor's discharge for alleged sexual harassment was a nullity because the employer violated the collective agreement's sunset clause.

The employer's investigator had considered a 1992 allegation of inappropriate comments for which the grievor was never disciplined.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the motion, finding that the sunset clause only applies to formal letters of reprimand, suspensions, or other sanctions placed on a personnel file.

Since the 1992 incident resulted in no discipline, the sunset clause did not apply to bar its consideration, though the union remained free to challenge the fairness of relying on it on other grounds.

The grievor sought to buy back pension contributions for a period of absence from 1991 to 1992.

The employer objected that the grievance, filed in December 1999, was untimely under the collective agreement.

The collective agreement required a grievance to be filed within 10 days of the employee first becoming aware of the circumstances giving rise to the complaint.

The Grievance Settlement Board applied a subjective test, finding that the time limit only began to run when the grievor became aware she had a right to grieve under the collective agreement, which occurred in early December 1999.

The grievance was therefore found to be timely.

The grievor was discharged by the employer, who relied on his past disciplinary record and alleged breaches of a settlement agreement regarding attendance and punctuality.

The union argued there was no culminating event to justify the discharge.

The arbitrator found that the employer could not rely on the grievor exceeding the 10-day absence limit as a triggering event because it had already addressed that issue with a warning.

Furthermore, the employer could not rely on the grievor's failure to provide a timely medical note because it was not stated as a reason in the discharge letter.

The discharge was rescinded and the grievor reinstated with full compensation.

The grievor was discharged following a physical altercation with a coworker.

Through a mediation-arbitration process, the parties agreed to reinstate the grievor to the part-time seniority list without admission of liability.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the reinstatement on the agreed terms.

The issues of timeliness, arbitrability, and whether the period between discharge and reinstatement should be treated as a suspension without pay remain outstanding for future determination if not resolved.

The union filed a policy grievance alleging violations of the Letter of Agreement on Permanent Vacancy Review.

At the hearing, issues arose regarding disclosure and particulars.

The parties agreed to an order for the employer to provide specific documents and information, and for the union to subsequently advise whether it was pursuing its claim that the employer failed to post the appropriate number of vacancies.

The Board issued the agreed-upon order and remained seized of the grievance.