Owen V. Gray

In a grievance arbitration involving allegations of unjust discipline, harassment, failure to accommodate, and unjust dismissal, the parties disputed the order of proceeding and the exchange of particulars and productions.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued a procedural order directing both parties to provide full written particulars of their factual allegations and to produce all relevant documents according to a specified timetable prior to the mediation-arbitration hearing.

The union requested an adjournment of a discharge grievance hearing because the grievor failed to attend.

The employer requested that the grievance be dismissed.

The grievor had previously been granted two adjournments and had failed to maintain contact with union counsel or provide updated contact information.

The arbitrator found that the grievor had compromised the union's ability to proceed and had likely abandoned interest in pursuing her grievance.

The request for an adjournment was denied, and the grievance was dismissed.

The union filed numerous grievances regarding the alleged exposure of correctional institution employees to tobacco smoke.

At the hearing, the list of outstanding grievances was uncertain.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the union to provide written particulars of each grievance by April 30, 2007, and ordered the employer to provide written particulars of any preliminary objections by June 29, 2007, before scheduling further hearings on preliminary matters or the merits.

The grievor, a retail sales tax auditor, was discharged after the employer discovered she had obtained her position using fraudulent academic credentials.

The grievor claimed her abusive ex-husband had forced her to submit the false documents and that she was powerless to resist.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that while her initial deception might have been influenced by her husband, her continued concealment of the truth for four years after their separation was voluntary and dishonest.

Applying the Gould approach, the Board concluded that the grievor's ongoing deceit and failure to take responsibility destroyed the employment relationship, establishing just cause for discharge.

The grievance was dismissed.

The union filed grievances alleging the employer failed to provide paid meal and rest breaks to correctional staff at the Ottawa Carleton Detention Centre.

Following a partial settlement, the union sought compensation for breaks allegedly denied.

Given the large number of claimants and the fact-specific nature of each claim, the Grievance Settlement Board ordered the parties to exchange written particulars and produce relevant documents prior to further hearing dates to ensure an efficient hearing process.

The union grieved the result of a job competition for two Program Analyst positions, alleging the competition was flawed and unfair to the grievor.

The grievor claimed she was disadvantaged during the software aptitude test due to computer difficulties and that the interview process was rushed and biased.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding no evidence of bias, that the interview and testing processes were reasonable and consistent, and that the grievor's failure to report alleged computer difficulties at the time undermined her claim.

The successful candidates were demonstrably more qualified and able.

The union requested pre-hearing production of all arguably relevant emails and correspondence between LCBO managers relating to the grievor.

The employer objected, arguing the request was an unreasonable fishing expedition and that labour arbitration does not require civil-style documentary discovery.

The arbitrator held that under s. 48(12) of the Labour Relations Act, arbitrators have the power to order pre-hearing production of arguably relevant documents.

The arbitrator ordered the employer to produce arguably relevant communications involving specific managers during a defined period, and made a reciprocal order for the union and grievor.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued directions for the mutual production of arguably relevant email messages and written communications relating to the grievor.

The employer was directed to produce communications involving specified individuals, and the union was directed to produce communications involving the grievor.

The Board also established a process for asserting claims of privilege and authorized the employer to search its computer systems and email accounts to locate relevant documents.

The grievor, a payment specialist at the WSIB, was terminated under Article 13.05 of the collective agreement for being absent without a justifiable reason for more than ten consecutive working days.

The grievor had requested an extension of her leave due to work-related stress, but failed to provide sufficient medical evidence.

The employer sent letters to her home address requiring her to return to work or provide medical evidence, but she was out of the country and did not receive them.

The arbitrator found that the grievor had a justifiable reason for her absence because she reasonably expected the employer to contact her by cell phone regarding her leave request.

The termination was set aside, and a one-month unpaid suspension was substituted for her failure to properly communicate and return to work.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued a procedural order concerning nine grievances heard together.

The parties agreed on the order of proceeding, with the employer proceeding first on a suspension/transfer grievance and the union proceeding first on the remaining grievances.

The Vice-Chair directed both parties to provide full written particulars of the facts on which they rely and to produce copies of all relevant documents in their possession, establishing a timetable for these exchanges.

The union filed a grievance alleging that the employer violated Article 9.1 of the collective agreement by failing to make reasonable provisions for the health and safety of employees at the Toronto Jail.

The union argued that inmate overcrowding and staff shortages led to excessive overtime, which created health and safety risks, including job strain and effort-reward imbalance.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that the union's expert evidence on job strain was unreliable due to potential selection and reporting biases.

The arbitrator also concluded that the literature did not support a causal relationship between long work hours and adverse health outcomes, and that the employer's reliance on voluntary overtime did not constitute a failure to make reasonable provisions for health and safety.

The union requested production of various documents from the employer, including an investigation file, internal emails regarding a manager's behaviour, and records relating to the grievors' absences and accommodation.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the production of the requested emails and accommodation records, but deferred the request for the conciliator's investigation file pending review of the retainer terms.

The employer requested production of the grievors' complete medical files, which the union undertook to obtain, review for relevance, and produce subject to potential redactions.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued a procedural order requiring the union and the employer to exchange written particulars of all allegations of fact and to produce all documents on which they intend to rely.

The order established a schedule for the exchange of particulars, productions, and reply particulars, and stipulated that failure to comply would preclude a party from introducing the undisclosed evidence without leave.

The employer and the union engaged in negotiations regarding the grievor's resignation and a severance package.

The employer argued that an oral agreement was reached when it agreed to include a waiver of a WSIB overpayment in the proposed memorandum of agreement.

The union argued that no final agreement was reached, as the grievor's signature on a written document was a precondition.

The arbitrator found that the communications between the parties did not result in a binding agreement, as the union had made it clear that the grievor's signed acknowledgement was required before it would agree to the settlement.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued an order amending a previous scheduling order dated April 19, 2004.

Following correspondence from union counsel advising that one of the grievances had been settled, the Board corrected the file references and reallocated the remaining grievances into two separate sets of hearings scheduled for October, November, and December 2004.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued a brief decision determining that the parties did not reach a settlement concerning the termination of the grievor's employment with the LCBO in June 2003.

The Vice-Chair remained seised with the question of remedies required to put the grievor back in the position he would have been in had the employer not taken the position that he had resigned, with reasons to follow.

The grievor, a tax auditor, submitted expense claims for lunches exceeding the employer's $9.25 unreceipted maximum.

The employer reimbursed $9.25 for each meal and denied the excess, citing a lack of extenuating circumstances or explanations from the grievor.

The union grieved, arguing the employer's requirement for explanations for any amount over $9.25 was an arbitrary exercise of management discretion under the collective agreement.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievances, finding that the employer did not act arbitrarily.

The employer was entitled to rely on its knowledge that reasonable meals could be purchased for $9.25 or less in the relevant localities, especially since the grievor failed to provide any explanations for the higher costs when submitting his claims.

The union sought production of documents relating to the adjustment of work hours for other employees, arguing it was relevant to the grievor's claim of failure to accommodate a disability.

The arbitrator dismissed the request, finding the information irrelevant as the employer did not claim undue hardship but rather disputed the existence of a disability and the provision of medical information.

The arbitrator also ordered the union to provide written particulars of any acts or omissions relied upon to demonstrate discriminatory motivation or effect.

More than 100 tax auditors grieved the employer's refusal to reimburse their professional membership dues (CGA, CA, CMA).

The union argued that under a government-wide policy, the employer was required to reimburse the dues because the memberships were beneficial to the ministry, and that the refusal was an unreasonable exercise of management rights.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that the grievances were not arbitrable because the collective agreement was silent on the reimbursement of professional dues, and the employer's policy did not constitute an undertaking that created enforceable rights under the agreement.

In the alternative, the Board found that the union failed to prove that the employer's decision not to reimburse the dues was unreasonable, as there was insufficient evidence that maintaining the memberships provided a benefit to the ministry that outweighed the cost of reimbursement.

The grievances were dismissed.

The union brought a motion during an arbitration hearing requesting that the employer be ordered to produce records detailing the time spent by certain employees on the Vehicle Resolve Project.

The employer objected, arguing the request was untimely.

The arbitrator found that the records were relevant to the issues in dispute and that, given the hearing schedule, an order for production would not delay the proceedings.

The employer was ordered to produce the requested records.