Randi H. Abramsky

The grievor filed a grievance alleging the employer provided erroneous information to independent medical evaluation specialists, based on draft letters she discovered in her occupational health file.

The employer argued the grievance was barred by a prior Memorandum of Settlement that fully and finally settled all claims related to her return to work and accommodation process up to November 30, 2012.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that the draft letters related to the matters settled in the Memorandum of Settlement and could not be raised as a separate and distinct event.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued a consent order regarding the confidentiality of materials produced by the Health Board Secretariat.

The order requires the employer to redact personal identifying and medical information of non-parties prior to production.

The union's counsel is restricted from disclosing the materials beyond those who need to know for the hearing, and all copies must be returned or destroyed at the conclusion of the proceedings.

The employer raised a preliminary objection to the arbitrability of a grievance contesting the dismissal of a probationary employee.

The grievor was discharged after being charged with manslaughter following an altercation.

The collective agreement provided that probationary employees could be dismissed at the 'absolute and sole discretion' of the employer and that such dismissal 'shall be deemed to be for just cause.' The union argued there was an implied obligation that the employer's decision not be arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith.

The arbitrator held that the explicit language of the collective agreement overrode any implied obligation, precluding the board from reviewing the dismissal.

The grievance was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The union requested that the grievor's name be anonymized in any decisions issued by the Grievance Settlement Board, arguing that the case involved sensitive medical information regarding the grievor's back and neck pain.

The employer opposed the request, relying on the open court principle.

The arbitrator held that the Grievance Settlement Board is a public statutory tribunal subject to the open court principle, creating a presumption of publication.

The arbitrator concluded that the union failed to establish exceptional or compelling circumstances to justify anonymization, as the medical issues were not highly sensitive and concerns about potential impacts on outside employment were insufficient.

The motion for anonymization was denied.

In an arbitration proceeding, the parties disputed several production requests and particulars.

The Employer sought an order restricting the Union from using disclosed medical records to trigger a future duty to accommodate, which the Arbitrator denied, noting the implied undertaking protects the disclosing party's privacy and does not limit their own future use.

The Arbitrator also denied the Employer's request for the grievor's tax returns to verify outside employment, finding them not arguably relevant given privacy interests and the availability of less intrusive means.

However, the Arbitrator ordered the Union to provide particulars regarding the grievor's part-time work discussions, as they were arguably relevant, subject to the Employer's agreement not to discipline the grievor regarding conflict of interest forms.

The parties disputed whether a Memorandum of Settlement signed on November 28, 2014, resolved seven grievances filed by the grievor in 2013 regarding statutory holiday pay.

The Employer argued that the settlement's language withdrawing 'any and all grievances up to today's date' included the 2013 grievances.

The Union argued that the settlement was intended only to cover grievances filed between March 2010 and November 2012, as specified in other clauses.

The Vice-Chair found that, reading the agreement as a whole and in context, the parties intended to resolve only the grievances from 2010 to 2012.

The 2013 grievances were not resolved by the settlement and remain to be scheduled.

The employer brought a motion to dismiss a grievance filed in 2011 that was not referred to arbitration until 2015, arguing it was untimely.

The union argued the grievance was arbitrable because the parties agreed to postpone the Stage 2 meeting indefinitely, there was a past practice of holding grievances in abeyance while an employee was on sick leave, and the employer waived its right to object to the time limits.

The Grievance Settlement Board rejected the first two arguments but found that, on an objective basis, the employer's representative had waived the right to object to the late referral during a telephone conversation with the union representative.

The motion to dismiss was denied and the grievance was scheduled for a hearing.

The Union brought a preliminary motion arguing that the Employer improperly relied on stale-dated 'adverse notations' when terminating the grievor, a Transit Safety Officer, contrary to the collective agreement's sunset clause.

The Employer argued it only considered the culminating incident and a recent mentoring session.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the termination letter and the deciding manager's testimony demonstrated reliance on prior complaints of excessive force that were over 24 months old.

Following prior jurisprudence, the Board held that relying on such stale-dated information violated the sunset clause.

The preliminary motion was granted, the discharge was set aside, and the grievor was reinstated with full compensation.

The Employer requested documents pertaining to the grievor's criminal charges and trial, while the Union requested a list of documents over which the Employer claimed privilege.

The Vice-Chair ordered that the Employer's document request be deferred until a decision is made on its preliminary motion to dismiss based on the grievor's probationary status.

The Employer was ordered to provide a list of documents preceding the termination date over which it claimed privilege, including the date, author, recipients, general subject matter, and privilege claimed.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued a procedural order establishing a schedule for the Employee Screening Tool subcommittee process pursuant to a Memorandum of Agreement.

The order mandates monthly meetings commencing in September 2016 to discuss the tool's implementation for each ministry, starting with Community Safety and Correctional Services, Attorney General, and Natural Resources and Forestry.

The Vice-Chair remains seized with the implementation of the Agreement and the hearing of the grievances should the subcommittee discussions prove fruitless.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of an employee who was not screened in for an interview for a temporary position in a different bargaining unit (AMAPCEO).

The employer raised a preliminary objection to the Board's jurisdiction.

The Vice-Chair upheld the objection, finding that an employee in one bargaining unit has no right to grieve a competition conducted under another collective agreement, and has the same status as an external candidate.

Furthermore, the issue was moot because the position was ultimately filled through a compassionate transfer rather than the posting.

The grievance was dismissed.

The union filed a grievance alleging the employer violated the collective agreement and the Travel, Meal, and Hospitality Expenses Directive by denying the grievor's parking expense claim.

The grievor had picked up a co-worker on his way to a meeting at headquarters and claimed parking costs, arguing it constituted ministry business.

The arbitrator found that picking up a co-worker did not constitute ministry business under the policy.

However, because the employer had paid the expense in similar circumstances on three prior occasions, the arbitrator ordered the employer to reimburse the grievor for this specific claim, while affirming the employer's right to enforce the policy prospectively.

The Employer moved to dismiss a grievance alleging discrimination and unfair reclassification on the basis that it failed to establish a prima facie case.

The Grievor alleged he was paid less than a white colleague who had been secretly reclassified, and raised issues regarding other positions.

The Grievance Settlement Board found documentary evidence disproved the secret reclassification, and the Grievor lacked standing to challenge the other positions.

The motion to dismiss was granted.

The Union alleged that the Employer breached a Memorandum of Settlement by failing to locate and return Black History Month posters from 2013 to the grievor, and that the Employer misled the grievor into signing the settlement knowing the posters were destroyed.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the allegations, finding that the Employer fulfilled its obligation to assist in searching for the posters, and that there was no evidence to support the claim that the Employer misled the grievor.

The grievor filed two job competition grievances but failed to attend two scheduled hearing dates without providing medical substantiation or adequate notice.

The Employer moved to dismiss the grievances for abuse of process, while the Union requested an adjournment.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the grievor's conduct demonstrated a complete lack of respect for the Board's process and prejudiced the Employer.

The motion to dismiss was granted.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued a procedural direction ordering the Union to clarify its allegations regarding how the Employer failed to follow the OPS Return to Work Policy and the Health Reassignment Process by November 30, 2015.

The Employer sought production of arguably relevant, non-privileged documents from the Union and the grievor, including clinical notes and records related to the grievor's accommodation request and harassment allegations.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the production of these documents, subject to strict confidentiality conditions limiting their use and disclosure to specific Employer representatives and medical experts solely for the purposes of the proceeding.

The union filed two grievances alleging that the grievor was denied developmental opportunities.

Following a hearing pursuant to Article 22.16 of the collective agreement, the Vice-Chair dismissed the grievances.

The grievor failed to attend the scheduled grievance arbitration hearing, citing stress.

The hearing was adjourned to a new date.

The Board warned the grievor that if he fails to attend the rescheduled hearing, the Employer's motion to dismiss the grievances will be considered.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued an interim procedural order directing the employer to respond to the union's particulars and provide an investigation report into alleged harassment, subject to confidentiality undertakings.

The Board also set a timeline for additional document requests and responses, and directed the parties to explore settlement prior to the next hearing date.