Randi Abramsky

The Employer raised an issue regarding the grievor's ability to participate in the hearing.

The Union provided a medical note strongly recommending the grievor not have face-to-face meetings with managers or staff.

The Vice-Chair found the note insufficient to determine if the grievor could testify or what accommodations were needed.

The Union was ordered to obtain clarification from the doctor regarding the grievor's ability to participate, the specific individuals she should avoid, and any necessary accommodations.

Following a previous decision, the Grievance Settlement Board ordered the employer to pay the grievor $13,000 less mandatory deductions.

The employer was also ordered to cease any payroll deductions for the grievor's absences between March 18, 2009, and their last day of work at the Toronto East Detention Centre.

The hearing was scheduled to continue on October 4 and 5, 2004, but could not proceed due to the grievor's unavailability and failure to provide full particulars.

The Grievance Settlement Board rescheduled the hearing for June and September 2005.

The Board ordered the union and the grievor to provide the requested particulars and documents to the employer by April 29, 2005, failing which the Board would consider a motion to dismiss the grievances.

The Union moved to consolidate a policy grievance filed in August 2003 with an earlier group grievance filed in May 2001.

The group grievance claimed that court reporters were forced to perform authorized duties on overtime hours without overtime pay.

The policy grievance sought a declaration that the preparation and certification of transcripts is bargaining unit work.

The Employer opposed the motion, arguing the grievances were different.

The Grievance Settlement Board granted the motion to consolidate, finding that both grievances raised common questions of law and fact regarding whether the preparation of transcripts constitutes bargaining unit work subject to the collective agreement's overtime provisions.

The Ministry alleged that the grievor breached a confidentiality provision in a settlement agreement resolving a harassment grievance.

The settlement included a $1,000 payment and a strict confidentiality clause.

A co-worker later disclosed specific details of the settlement to management, claiming the grievor had shared them.

The grievor denied disclosing the terms.

The arbitrator found the co-worker's knowledge of the specific terms, including the exact amount and the existence of a gag order, was too accurate to be a guess.

Concluding that the grievor breached the confidentiality provision, the arbitrator ordered the grievor to return the $1,000 settlement payment to deter future breaches and protect the integrity of the settlement process.