Owen V. Gray

In a grievance arbitration concerning events that occurred several years prior, the employer objected that the grievance was untimely.

The parties agreed to a timetable for the delivery of particulars.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued a consent order directing the union to deliver full written particulars of its allegations of material fact regarding the merits of the grievance and any request to extend time limits by January 21, 2011.

In a grievance arbitration concerning the employer's alleged failure to accommodate a disability arising from workplace harassment, the Grievance Settlement Board issued a pre-hearing procedural order.

Following an unsuccessful mediation, the Vice-Chair ordered both parties to exchange full written particulars of their material facts and produce all relevant documents according to a set timetable to ensure an efficient hearing on the merits.

The union requested a change of venue for the arbitration hearing from Toronto to St. Catharines/Thorold, citing the grievor's medical condition that allegedly restricted his travel.

The employer opposed the request, arguing the medical evidence only restricted the grievor from driving, not from taking public transit.

The Grievance Settlement Board applied a balance of convenience test, noting that denying the venue change could effectively deny the grievor a hearing if his medical claims were true.

The Board ordered the first day of the hearing to be held in St. Catharines or Thorold, with the venue for any subsequent days to be determined later.

The union filed approximately 235 grievances alleging that the employer failed to make reasonable provisions for the health and safety of employees by exposing them to second-hand smoke in correctional facilities.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that many of the grievances were untimely.

The parties agreed to use one grievance as a test case.

The grievor had been exposed to second-hand smoke between 1991 and 2001, but did not file a grievance until November 2005, after learning of financial awards in other legal proceedings related to second-hand smoke.

The union requested an extension of the time limits under subsection 48(16) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the grievor was solely responsible for the lengthy delay and had not acted diligently in pursuing his rights.

The Board concluded there were no reasonable grounds to extend the time limit and dismissed the test case grievance as untimely.

The parties reached a mutually acceptable settlement regarding allegations that the complainant was subjected to discriminatory treatment contrary to the Workplace Discrimination and Harassment Prevention Policy.

The Employer acknowledged the discriminatory treatment and took steps to remedy the situation.

The Grievance Settlement Board terminated the proceedings.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the union's grievance alleging workplace harassment and failure to accommodate was precluded by the settlement of a previous grievance.

The previous grievance had alleged a failure to accommodate based on family status.

The current grievance alleged harassment by a manager, including conduct related to the denial of accommodation requests.

The arbitrator held that the settlement of the previous grievance only precluded claims for remedies arising directly from the failure to accommodate, and did not preclude claims for redress for harassment, even if that harassment occurred in the context of responding to accommodation requests.

The grievor, a casual employee at the LCBO, was progressively disciplined and ultimately discharged for repeatedly failing to work scheduled shifts due to conflicts with her full-time employment at a long-term care facility.

The union grieved the discipline and discharge, arguing that the employer's minimum availability requirement was unreasonable and that the employer failed to accommodate the grievor's schedule.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievances, finding that the employer's minimum availability rule was a reasonable exercise of management rights under the collective agreement and satisfied the KVP test.

The Board held that the employer had just cause to discipline and discharge the grievor for her culpable failure to report to work as scheduled, and declined to substitute a lesser penalty.

The union filed a grievance against the employer.

Following an extensive mediation-arbitration process, the union withdrew the grievance in consideration of certain undertakings by the employer.

The Grievance Settlement Board formally terminated the proceedings.

Following an extensive mediation-arbitration process, the union withdrew the grievance in consideration of certain undertakings by the employer.

The Grievance Settlement Board terminated the proceedings.

The union grieved that the employer breached the collective agreement by assigning the grievor new duties related to fleet and facilities maintenance without paying him at a higher classification rate.

The employer argued the grievance was an inarbitrable classification dispute.

The union characterized it as a breach of the temporary assignment provisions.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that the assignment of new duties was not temporary and did not constitute a temporary assignment to another position.

The grievor, a black unclassified Administrative Support Clerk, alleged that the employer discriminated against him on the basis of race or colour when he was unsuccessful in job competitions for permanent and temporary positions, and when his temporary employment contract was not renewed.

The Grievance Settlement Board reviewed the evidence regarding the grievor's hiring, his treatment during employment, the conduct of the job competitions, and the reasons for non-renewal.

The Board found that the employer's actions were based on legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons, such as the grievor's performance in the job competition and the collective agreement rules regarding contract renewals.

The grievances were dismissed.

The union requested the Grievance Settlement Board to convene a further hearing regarding claims from a 1983 decision.

The employer raised preliminary objections.

The Board ordered a schedule for the exchange of amended particulars and documents between the parties regarding the preliminary objections and disputed facts.

The union grieved the employer's practice of paying flexible part-time employees at straight time for paid leave hours (vacation, statutory holidays, etc.) taken after the employee had accrued 110% of their minimum annual hours.

The union argued that under Appendix 32 of the collective agreement, these leave hours should be considered 'excess hours' and paid at the overtime rate.

The employer contended that only hours actually worked counted as overage hours for overtime purposes.

The Grievance Settlement Board allowed the grievances, finding that 'hours worked' in the parties' agreements was shorthand that included paid leave hours, and directed the employer to pay the overtime premium for the leave hours in question.

The union filed a grievance alleging that the employer violated the collective agreement when a flexible part-time employee incurred an hours deficit for a week after taking a sick day.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the employer's scheduling obligation under the collective agreement is to make reasonable efforts to ensure employees are scheduled to work their minimum annual hours over the course of a calendar year, not on a weekly basis.

As there was no evidence that the employer failed to meet this annual obligation, the grievance was dismissed.

The grievor, a correctional officer, was reassigned from a property officer post to accommodate his family responsibilities after his wife was injured.

Eight months later, he requested to return to the property officer post, but the employer assigned him to a different post.

The union grieved, alleging a breach of a local Post Rotation Protocol and discrimination on the basis of family status under the Ontario Human Rights Code and the collective agreement.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the employer's decision not to return the grievor to the property officer post was reasonable and did not constitute a failure to accommodate his family responsibilities.

The Grievance Settlement Board heard several grievances concerning the interpretation of Appendix 32 to the collective agreement, which established the 'flexible part-time' (FPT) category for court workers.

The union raised several questions of general application regarding work assignments, reporting pay, and call-back pay for FPT employees.

The Board found that the employer is not required to schedule FPT staff to a particular courthouse, that assigning different set-up times to different classifications does not violate the agreement, and that FPT employees are not entitled to a minimum number of after-lunch work hours merely by returning from lunch.

The Board also held that reassigning an employee to another courthouse during their scheduled shift does not constitute a 'call back'.

All illustrative grievances were dismissed.

In a grievance arbitration involving multiple files, the Grievance Settlement Board dismissed several grievances.

The 'Slat et al.' grievances concerning vacation credits were dismissed because the union conceded it had no dispute with the employer, and the Board lacks jurisdiction over disputes solely between employees and the union.

The 'Sign In Sheet' grievances were also dismissed insofar as they claimed the employer was obliged to provide employees with photocopies of their daily sign-in sheets, as no provision in the collective agreement required the employer to do so.

The grievor, a full-time employee, suffered a workplace injury resulting in a permanent restriction limiting him to working six hours per shift.

The employer subsequently converted his status from full-time to part-time, which reduced his access to attendance and vacation credits.

The union grieved, arguing the change in status constituted discrimination on the basis of disability contrary to the collective agreement and the Human Rights Code.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the grievor's permanent inability to work full-time hours provided just cause to terminate his full-time status.

The Board held that compensating a disabled employee working part-time hours on the same basis as other part-time employees does not amount to prohibited discrimination, as the duty to accommodate does not require an employer to top up compensation for work the employee cannot perform.

In a grievance arbitration under the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act, the parties agreed to exchange particulars and productions prior to the hearing.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued a consent order detailing the requirements and a timetable for the exchange of written particulars and documents.

The order included specific directions for the employer to produce documents related to the grievor's job matching and certain job competitions.

The union filed a grievance alleging the employer failed to maintain a past practice of providing free parking when employees were relocated to a new building.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the union was improperly expanding the scope of the grievance by adding health and safety claims and allegations of differential treatment, and that the failure to provide free parking did not breach the collective agreement.

The arbitrator upheld the preliminary objection, finding the new claims were beyond the scope of the original grievance and that the collective agreement contained no provision requiring the employer to provide free parking.

The grievance was dismissed.