Randi H. Abramsky

The Employer raised a preliminary objection to the Board's jurisdiction to hear a group grievance filed by Employment Standard Officers regarding a new workload quota.

The Employer argued the grievance alleged a free-standing violation of management rights, over which the Board lacks jurisdiction, and that the Union's subsequent reliance on health and safety and discipline provisions constituted an improper expansion of the grievance.

The Board agreed, finding that even on a liberal reading, the original written grievance could not be construed to encompass health and safety or discipline claims.

As the Board has no jurisdiction to review a free-standing exercise of management rights for reasonableness, the Employer's preliminary motion was granted and the grievance was dismissed.

The Employer raised preliminary objections to the jurisdiction of the Grievance Settlement Board regarding several group and individual grievances filed by student employees over the cessation of vacation and holiday pay-in-lieu (PIL) payments.

The Employer argued the grievances did not raise a prima facie case and improperly expanded the original claims by raising new arguments under Article 33.3 and estoppel.

The Board dismissed this objection, finding the new arguments were permissible legal theories supporting the original grievance.

The Employer also objected to the timeliness of certain grievances.

The Board found the failure to pay PIL was a continuing violation, making the filings timely, but upheld the objection regarding the untimely referral of certain grievances to arbitration, dismissing those specific grievances.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the Union to provide full particulars related to its claims for retrospective relief regarding transcript production within 45 days.

The particulars must include the identity of each individual, dates and times of work performed, and how the Collective Agreement applies to each claim.

The Board also directed the Union to advise the Employer if the Union Dues document does not identify employees' classifications, with a teleconference to be convened for any disclosure disputes.

The grievor sought severance pay under the Employment Standards Act and benefits under a Memorandum of Agreement following the closure of the Rideau Regional Centre.

The grievor held an unclassified on-call contract at the closed facility while simultaneously holding a separate part-time classified position with another ministry.

The arbitrator held that the grievor was not entitled to benefits under the Memorandum of Agreement because she did not exit the Ontario Public Service.

However, resolving an ambiguity in the Employment Standards Act, the arbitrator found the grievor was entitled to severance pay for the loss of the unclassified position, subject to potential regulatory exemptions.

The Employer raised a preliminary objection arguing that the grievance filed by six IRP Issuing Clerks was a classification grievance over which the Grievance Settlement Board lacked jurisdiction.

The Union argued the grievance concerned retroactive pay and an arbitrary exercise of management rights, as the Employer had already recognized its error and reclassified the grievors but denied them the retroactive pay provided to other similarly situated employees.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the Employer's objection, finding that because the Employer had already reclassified the grievors, the Board did not need to determine their proper classification, and thus had jurisdiction to hear the claim for retroactive pay.

The Union filed nine grievances alleging the Employer violated the collective agreement by actions taken against the grievors regarding an alleged pattern of absences, and challenged the Employer's 'Best Practices' document.

The Employer raised a preliminary objection to the scope of the issues, arguing the document was not a formal policy and could only be challenged as applied to the individual grievors.

The Union acknowledged it would only challenge the aspects of the document applied to the grievors.

The Vice-Chair ruled that this concession obviated the need for a broader ruling on the preliminary motion, and deferred the issue of the scope of remedial jurisdiction as premature.

The Employer raised a preliminary objection regarding the Grievance Settlement Board's jurisdiction to issue prospective remedies following a previous decision that found transcript preparation to be bargaining unit work.

The Union argued the issue was already decided in a prior ruling and that the Board had broad remedial authority to prevent the Employer from unilaterally implementing a new transcript production model.

The Board held that the prior ruling did not decide the jurisdictional issue.

Furthermore, the Board concluded it lacked jurisdiction to order prospective relief because the Employer's new proposed regulatory model raised new facts and issues not encompassed in the original grievances, and any challenge to it must be brought through a new grievance.

During a hearing on a motion to intervene, the employer requested permission to disseminate a memorandum and proceed with stakeholder consultation, arguing that the document's possession by a third-party coalition violated a previous Board order.

The union opposed the request.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the employer's request, clarifying that the earlier decision did not prevent the dissemination of the memorandum itself, but rather precluded the employer from unilaterally initiating the implementation process outlined within it.

The Board held that the consultation process constituted part of implementation and remained prohibited by the prior cease and desist order.

The Coalition of Concerned Court Reporters of Ontario sought leave to intervene in the remedial stage of an arbitration concerning the preparation and certification of transcripts by Court Reporters.

The Grievance Settlement Board denied the motion, finding that the Union is the exclusive representative of the Court Reporters and that no exceptional circumstances existed to justify granting third-party standing to a group of bargaining unit members who may disagree with the Union's position.

The Union sought an order preventing the Employer from unilaterally implementing changes to court reporting and transcript production while the Grievance Settlement Board remained seized with remedial issues from a prior decision.

The prior decision found that transcript preparation was bargaining unit work.

The Employer argued it had management rights to implement its plan and the Union could challenge it at the remedial hearing.

The Vice-Chair held that allowing unilateral implementation would circumvent the ongoing hearing process and undermine the Board's integrity.

The Employer was ordered to cease and desist implementation pending the resolution of the remedial issues.

The Union raised a preliminary objection arguing that the grievor's termination was void ab initio because the Employer violated the union representation clause (Article 26.3) of the collective agreement.

A shift leader had confronted the grievor about a co-worker's harassment allegations without offering union representation.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the shift leader was acting as a representative of management and the meeting triggered Article 26.3.

However, because the termination was also based on subsequent alleged misconduct not discussed at that meeting, the termination was not void ab initio.

The Employer was merely precluded from relying on the allegations discussed at the improper meeting.

The union filed a grievance alleging the grievor was improperly denied a negotiated wage increase for his home position while he was on an acting assignment outside the bargaining unit.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, following established jurisprudence that wage rates are for work performed in a classification.

Because the grievor was not performing work in his home classification during the acting assignment, his pay was properly tied to the acting position.

During an arbitration hearing, the union objected to the introduction of an exhibit and questions regarding the grievor's 2002 strike activity.

The Grievance Settlement Board sustained the objection, ruling that the strike activity was not relevant to the issues in dispute.

Any evidence and particulars regarding the strike activity were ordered stricken from the record.

In an addendum to an earlier decision, the Grievance Settlement Board dismissed an inadvertently omitted grievance.

The grievance was dismissed for the reasons set forth in the employer's motion to dismiss.

The Employer brought a motion to dismiss two grievances (from 1996 and 1999) on the basis of laches, arguing that the Union's delay in providing particulars prejudiced its ability to defend the claims due to faded memories and the destruction of relevant documents.

The Grievance Settlement Board denied the motion regarding the 1999 grievance, finding that the Employer had sufficient notice of the accommodation-related claims before the documents were destroyed.

However, the Board granted the motion to dismiss the 1996 grievance, concluding that the eight-year unexplained delay and the introduction of new allegations severely prejudiced the Employer's ability to investigate and respond.

The union filed 193 individual grievances alleging that the employer violated the collective agreement by providing unequal pay for the same work when it temporarily reassigned six correctional officers to other facilities and paid them additional travel compensation.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievances.

On a preliminary objection, the Board held that the individual grievors lacked standing to grieve the compensation paid to other employees because they were paid in accordance with the collective agreement and were not directly affected.

On the merits, the Board found that the temporary reassignments did not constitute vacancies requiring posting under Article 6 of the collective agreement, even though some assignments were extended beyond the original three-month period.

The Union renewed its request for production of documents regarding compassionate/special leave granted to staff, providing a list of seven names.

The Vice-Chair denied the request for wholesale disclosure, clarifying an earlier ruling that the Union must point to specific incidents similar to the grievor's situation.

The request was denied for six of the individuals as 'family reasons' was too broad to establish similarity of circumstance, but granted for one individual whose specific reason was identified.

The Vice-Chair also denied the Union's request for additional time to canvass the bargaining unit, characterizing it as an impermissible fishing expedition.

The Union requested an order for the production of documents relating to grievances alleging discriminatory assignments based on gender and discriminatory refusal of compassionate leave.

The Employer argued the requests were improper fishing expeditions.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the Employer to provide access to schedules, assignments, and log books, finding them arguably relevant to the claim of a pattern of discriminatory assignments.

However, the Board denied the request for broad documentation regarding compassionate leave granted to other staff, as the Union failed to point to specific similar incidents.

In a union grievance, the Grievance Settlement Board ordered the Employer to produce particulars of its case to the Union.

The Board also ordered that the Employer lead its evidence first due to its control over the work in dispute, noting this has no impact on the onus.

The union filed grievances alleging that the employer discriminated against employees absent from work due to work-related injuries by not counting their WSIB leave time towards the calculation of continuous service dates, attendance credits, and merit pay.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the failure to include WSIB time for continuous service date purposes discriminated on the basis of disability, as seniority is primarily a participation/access benefit.

However, the Board dismissed the grievances regarding attendance credits and merit pay, concluding that these are compensation benefits tied to work, and the exclusion of WSIB time for these purposes did not constitute discrimination.