Randi H. Abramsky

The Employer brought a motion to dismiss several grievances and limit the scope of evidence in an arbitration concerning alleged gender discrimination and harassment.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed two grievances that had been previously withdrawn by the Union, finding it lacked jurisdiction to hear them.

A third grievance from 1990 was dismissed as abandoned due to a 16-year delay.

The Board also granted the Employer's motion to exclude evidence regarding previously settled grievances and events occurring more than three years prior to the current grievances, concluding that admitting such evidence would undermine the finality of settlements and prejudice the Employer.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance after the grievor failed to attend the scheduled hearing.

In a prior decision, the Board had given the union ten business days to provide an explanation for the absence and to show good cause why the grievance should not be dismissed.

As no explanation was received within the allotted time, the grievance was dismissed.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the adjournment of scheduled hearing dates due to pending related criminal proceedings.

The Board also ordered the Union to provide signed consent forms for the grievor's OHIP, family physician, and chiropractor records.

The Employer was ordered to provide a full, unedited copy of the Preliminary Review Report and the Report of the Investigation into Allegations of Resident Abuse, including witness statements, as well as information regarding injuries to two residents.

The documents are to be used solely for the litigation.

The Union and Employer participated in a conference call regarding a union grievance over the inclusion of certain positions in the bargaining unit.

The Vice-Chair issued an interim ruling directing the Employer to immediately apply the full terms and conditions of the collective agreement to the agreed-upon positions.

The ruling addressed the application of the benefit plan, commencement of dues deductions, calculation of seniority dates excluding student service, maintenance of current pay rates (with an adjustment for a seasonal position receiving a benefit allowance), and transfer of incumbents to the OPSEU Pension Trust.

The issue of back dues was deferred to the hearing on the merits.

The Employer brought a motion to dismiss several grievances filed by the Union on behalf of the grievor, alleging discriminatory treatment and unjust discipline based on his religious practices as a Sikh.

The Employer argued that the grievances lacked sufficient particulars, were untimely, or failed to disclose a violation of the collective agreement.

The Grievance Settlement Board reviewed each grievance individually.

The Board dismissed several grievances for lack of particulars or timeliness, but allowed others to proceed, in some cases limiting the temporal scope of the claims to ensure the Employer could adequately investigate and defend against the allegations.

The matter was scheduled for a mediation-arbitration hearing.

The grievor failed to attend the hearing and the Employer advised that the grievor had resigned effective that day.

The Employer moved to dismiss the grievance.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the Union to provide an explanation for the grievor's failure to attend and to show good cause within ten days why the grievance should not be dismissed.

The Union filed grievances alleging that court reporters were forced to perform authorized duties (preparation of transcripts) on overtime hours without overtime pay, contrary to the collective agreement.

The Employer argued that transcript preparation was not bargaining unit work and that court reporters acted as independent contractors when performing this function.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the preparation and certification of transcripts is an integral part of a court reporter's job, subject to significant control and oversight by the Ministry.

Applying the tests for independent contractor status, the Board concluded that court reporters are employees, not independent contractors, when preparing transcripts.

The Board declared that the preparation and certification of transcripts is bargaining unit work.

The grievor, a communications officer at an ambulance dispatch centre, was found to be in a conflict of interest in 1996 because her husband operated a private non-emergency patient transfer business.

Following the Ministry's divestment of land ambulance services to municipalities in 2000, the Union argued the conflict no longer existed as the Ministry was no longer in competition with the husband's business.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the core of the conflict—the grievor's access to information that could benefit her husband's business—remained unchanged despite the divestment.

The Union brought a motion for interim relief, requesting the Board to order the Employer to place the grievor on a paid leave of absence pending the resolution of her grievances alleging harassment and a poisoned work environment.

The grievor had exhausted her short-term sick leave and was on an unpaid leave of absence.

The Board denied the motion, finding that the balance of harm or convenience did not favor the grievor, as there was no medical evidence to support her claim that she was unable to work or that returning to work would cause her medical harm.

The Board also noted that granting the relief would subvert the Employer's accommodation and long-term income protection processes.

The grievor, an Information Officer 3, grieved the outcome of a job competition for a Communications Officer position, arguing she should have been awarded the position as the senior applicant and that the competition was flawed.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that while the employer's exclusive reliance on interview scores and a writing assignment—without reviewing resumes, personnel files, or conducting reference checks for all interviewed candidates—constituted a procedural flaw, the union failed to prove that these flaws affected the outcome.

The successful candidates provided more detailed, sophisticated answers and demonstrated more directly relevant experience.

The grievance was dismissed.

The Union brought a motion for interim relief requesting that the grievor be placed on a paid leave of absence pending the resolution of several grievances.

The Employer objected to the Board's jurisdiction, argued that particulars had not been provided, and objected to the Union relying on the grievor's affidavit without calling her to testify.

The Vice-Chair held that the Board had jurisdiction to hear the motion under section 48(12)(i) of the Labour Relations Act.

However, the Vice-Chair ordered the Union to provide particulars regarding the grievances and the alleged adverse impact.

The Vice-Chair also ruled that the Union could not rely exclusively on the grievor's affidavit without calling her to testify, as the Employer had a right to cross-examination.

The Employer brought a motion to compel the Union to provide additional particulars regarding a grievance alleging a failure to accommodate the grievor's disabilities under the Ontario Human Rights Code, prior to a scheduled hearing for interim relief.

The Vice-Chair reviewed the grievance, the Union's letter of particulars, and disclosed documents, concluding that they sufficiently outlined the 'who, what, where, when and how' of the allegations.

The Employer's concerns were deemed to be potential defences rather than a lack of basic particulars.

The motion for additional particulars was denied.

During an arbitration hearing, a dispute arose over certain requests for documents listed in a summons issued to a witness.

The Grievance Settlement Board heard submissions and ordered the witness to produce call records, ownership documents, and an employee list for MedStat Emergency Medical and Transfer Services, finding the documents arguably relevant to the issues in dispute.

The employer brought a motion to compel the attendance of a witness who failed to attend an arbitration hearing after being duly summoned.

The witness had been advised by counsel that he did not need to attend because he was not a Crown employee.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that under the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act and the Labour Relations Act, it has the authority to summon and enforce the attendance of any witness, including third parties, provided they live in Ontario and their testimony is relevant.

The Board ordered the witness to attend the next hearing date, noting that he could still object to producing requested documents at that time.

The Union filed grievances alleging that the Employer violated the collective agreement by failing to pay negotiated wage increases to correctional officers while they were on temporary acting assignments as non-bargaining unit Operational Managers.

The Union argued that under the collective agreement, employees on temporary assignment outside the bargaining unit remain covered by the agreement and are entitled to its negotiated wage increases.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievances, finding that while the collective agreement continues to apply, an employee's pay is tied to the classification of the work they are performing during the temporary assignment, not their home position.

The Board also found that the Union would be equitably estopped from enforcing its interpretation due to a lengthy past practice of tying acting pay to the acting position.

At the outset of a hearing before the Grievance Settlement Board, a preliminary issue arose regarding the order of proceeding.

The union argued the employer must proceed first as it was a disciplinary matter, while the employer argued the union must proceed first as the grievor allegedly failed to comply with an earlier Board decision regarding a conflict of interest.

The Vice-Chair ruled that the employer must proceed first, finding that the matter could be characterized either as disciplinary or as an alleged breach of an earlier decision, and under either characterization, the onus rests with the employer.

The Employer brought a preliminary motion to strike evidence and bar the introduction of further evidence relating to matters previously grieved by the grievor, which had been resolved by withdrawal or settlement.

The current grievance alleged a poisoned work environment and harassment.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the motion, finding that the current grievance was not identical or substantially similar in substance to the earlier grievances, which concerned staffing, training, and overtime.

Therefore, the arbitral rule of abandonment did not preclude the Union from relying on the underlying facts to support the new claim.

The grievor, a Probation and Parole Officer, received a 20-day suspension for substandard case management following an audit.

The Union raised a preliminary objection, arguing the Employer breached the duty of fairness and deprived the grievor of union representation by failing to disclose the intended level of discipline during pre-disciplinary meetings.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the objection, finding no right under the collective agreement or the Labour Relations Act to union representation at pre-disciplinary meetings, and holding that the duty of fairness does not require an employer to discuss the intended level of discipline before imposing it.

During a grievance arbitration regarding workplace harassment and resulting stress and anxiety, the employer brought a motion for the production of the grievor's decoded OHIP summary for a nine-year period.

The union opposed the request, arguing it was premature and overbroad.

The Grievance Settlement Board granted the motion, finding that the grievor's pre-existing medical condition and causation were significant issues in dispute.

The Board imposed conditions on the disclosure to address privacy concerns, limiting review to employer counsel and one advisor, prohibiting copies, and restricting use to the defense of the grievance.

In a grievance arbitration under the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act, the Grievance Settlement Board ordered the Union to provide the tax return information and documentation of the grievor and other witnesses from 1990 forward.

The Board noted it would consider requests by the Employer for additional tax years if the evidence indicated a need.