Randi H. Abramsky

In a group grievance alleging unreasonable workload for Case Managers, both the Union and the Employer sought pre-hearing production of documents and particulars.

The Arbitrator ordered the Employer to produce data on medical leaves, performance improvement plans, and workforce analysis from 2014 and 2018-2024, finding them arguably relevant to the Union's claims.

The Union was ordered to produce redacted individual workload survey results and to provide particulars explaining its assertion that 2014 workload levels were safe compared to later years.

The Employer's request for grievors' medical records was denied as premature.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued a procedural decision adjourning a scheduled hearing and setting a new date for case management.

The Employer was directed to make best efforts to provide requested particulars and documents, and to review outstanding production requests.

The Union was ordered to provide particulars regarding the nature of the continuing breach alleged in the 2018 grievance.

The Employer moved to bifurcate the hearing to address a preliminary objection to the Grievance Settlement Board's jurisdiction, arguing that the Union's withdrawal of two earlier grievances on the same issue precluded the current grievance.

The Union opposed bifurcation, arguing that the factual history surrounding the prior withdrawals was complex and relevant to both the preliminary objection and the merits.

The Arbitrator denied the motion to bifurcate, finding that the Employer failed to establish that deciding the preliminary issue first would result in substantial savings of time and resources, given the factual disputes about the parties' understandings when the prior grievances were withdrawn.

The grievor was terminated for cause following a workplace altercation over a tray of desserts, which the employer alleged violated her Last Chance Agreement (LCA).

The union grieved the termination, arguing the incident was minor and the penalty excessive.

The arbitrator found that the grievor engaged in misconduct by arguing loudly with a co-worker and ignoring a supervisor's directive to stop, violating the employer's Standards of Conduct.

Because the LCA explicitly stipulated termination as the specific penalty for any policy violation, the arbitrator held she had no jurisdiction under the Labour Relations Act to substitute a lesser penalty.

The grievance was dismissed.

The Employer (WSIB) requested an order for production of documents and particulars from the Union in a grievance arbitration.

The Arbitrator granted the request, ordering the Union to provide the requested documents, including employment records, mitigation documents, and particulars regarding the alleged collective agreement breaches and differential treatment, by April 14, 2023.

The union and employer reached an oral settlement agreement during a videoconference mediation regarding three grievances.

The grievor reluctantly agreed to the terms at the time but later refused to sign the written Memorandum of Settlement, citing stress and pressure from the virtual format.

The arbitrator held that a binding settlement had been reached, as an oral agreement on all issues is enforceable even if a party later refuses to execute the written document.

The union filed multiple grievances alleging that the grievor was subjected to harassment, discrimination, a poisoned work environment, and reprisal by her co-workers and management at the Ministry of Transportation following a health reassignment.

The grievor sought $10 million in damages.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievances, relying on extensive medical evidence from multiple Independent Medical Examinations which concluded that the grievor suffered from a psychiatric impairment characterized by paranoid delusions and a persecution complex.

The arbitrator found that the grievor's perceptions of harassment were fundamentally compromised by her medical condition and that the employer had acted reasonably and appropriately in investigating her complaints and managing her accommodation.

The Employer sought production of documents in the Union's possession that the grievor received from the Waterloo Regional Police in September 2013, pertaining to her allegations regarding a workplace incident on October 28, 2011.

The Arbitrator ordered the Union to produce the documents to the Employer.

The Union brought a preliminary motion to have discipline imposed on three Correctional Officers declared null and void due to the Employer's delay.

The discipline arose from an incident involving an inmate's death in November 2016, but was not imposed until September 2018.

The Arbitrator found the 22-month delay to be excessive and unreasonable.

Applying the arbitral principle that delay alone is insufficient to void discipline without prejudice, the Arbitrator examined the specific allegations.

Allegations relating to routine matters (security patrols, log book entries, and visual obstructions for two officers) were dismissed due to inherent prejudice affecting the officers' ability to recall the events.

However, allegations relating to the extraordinary event of failing to resuscitate the inmate, and failing to carry radios, were allowed to proceed as no prejudice was found.

The union filed several grievances on behalf of an employee regarding a workplace injury incident and accommodation issues.

The grievor alleged the employer failed to provide a safe workplace, improperly used video surveillance to dispute her WSIB claim, and failed to accommodate her need for an ergonomic chair.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievances, finding the employer had the right to dispute the WSIB claim and provide the requested video to the WSIB.

The arbitrator also found insufficient evidence that the employer failed to accommodate the grievor, noting the employer generally acted quickly to repair the shared ergonomic chair when it broke.

The union sought disclosure of certain documents in a grievance arbitration.

The arbitrator ordered the employer to disclose the Grace Shore Report and all communications between Dr. Dermer and the employer regarding the independent medical examination the grievor underwent in 2014.

The union grieved the employer's denial of short-term sickness benefits for an employee who took time off work to travel for monthly medical injections.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding no evidence that the treatments could only be administered during the employee's scheduled working hours, as she finished work at 2:00 p.m. and could travel to the clinic before the close of business.

The union alleged that the employer breached the collective agreement by engaging in discrimination, harassment, and abuse of authority when it requested that the grievor's short-term sickness benefit forms be separated by calendar year (2016 and 2017).

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that even if the employer was wrong to request the separation, the request did not amount to harassment or discrimination.

The evidence did not show that the request required extra doctor visits or caused additional stress.

The grievor sought special and compassionate leave under the collective agreement after missing a shift to repair her car.

The employer denied the request on the basis that the car was driveable and alternate transportation was available.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that the employer's decision was reasonable, made in good faith, and based on relevant facts, as the grievor had driven the car a considerable distance for repairs and could have found an alternate way to work.

The Grievor filed grievances contesting the Employer's refusal to allow her to review video surveillance footage of her work area on the date of an alleged workplace accident, and contesting the Employer's decision to allow another bargaining unit member to view and summarize the footage for a WSIB claim.

The Union argued this violated Appendix COR10 of the collective agreement and was an unreasonable exercise of management rights.

The Arbitrator dismissed the grievances, finding that Appendix COR10 only required notice and a copy of video recordings prior to a disciplinary meeting, which did not occur here.

The Arbitrator also found no independent breach of management rights without a hook in the collective agreement, and no prohibition against another employee viewing the video as part of their duties.

The Employer requested an order for the production of particulars and documents from the Union regarding the grievor's alleged disabilities (diabetes and hearing impairment), need for accommodation including an assistive animal, and alleged damage to hearing aids.

The Arbitrator granted the request, ordering the Union to provide the specified particulars by April 20, 2018, and the requested medical and training records as soon as possible.

The grievor, a courtroom clerk registrar, went on long-term income protection (LTIP) and subsequently moved to England to attend a two-year law program.

Her LTIP benefits were terminated due to her relocation.

The employer granted a short-term educational leave of absence but denied further extensions due to operational needs and staffing shortages.

The grievor then requested a medical leave of absence but failed to provide supporting medical documentation despite repeated requests and warnings.

After being absent without approved leave for over two weeks, the employer declared that she had abandoned her position under section 42 of the Public Service of Ontario Act.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievances, finding that the employer's denial of the leave requests was reasonable and that the statutory requisites for abandonment were met.

The union filed a grievance alleging the employer breached the confidentiality provisions of a prior settlement agreement by placing the unredacted memorandum of settlement, including monetary terms, in the grievor's staff services file.

The grievor testified she saw the full document in her file, while the employer's witnesses testified they only saw the accommodation plan schedule and never the monetary terms.

The arbitrator found the evidence from both sides to be credible and evenly balanced.

Because the evidence stood in equipoise, the union failed to meet its onus of proving the breach on a balance of probabilities, and the grievance was dismissed.

The Employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss several particulars filed by the Union, arguing they constituted an improper expansion of the original grievances and were untimely.

The original grievances contested the Employer's denial of the grievor's request for a leave of absence and the subsequent termination of her employment for abandonment.

The disputed particulars alleged a failure to accommodate the grievor's disability over a four-year period prior to the grievances.

The Arbitrator granted the motion in part, finding that the accommodation claims were not reasonably part of the original grievances and thus constituted an improper expansion.

Alternatively, the Arbitrator found the accommodation claims were untimely and declined to extend the time limits under section 48(16) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Arbitrator found the original grievances regarding the leave of absence were timely filed.

The Employer moved to strike particulars from a grievance alleging a failure to accommodate the grievor's back issues.

The disputed particulars related to a period when the grievor took a leave of absence to work for the Patient Ombudsman, a separate employer.

The Grievance Settlement Board granted the motion, finding it lacked jurisdiction to consider allegations of failure to accommodate while the grievor was employed by a different employer, as the Employer's duty to accommodate did not continue during that period.