Randi Hammer Abramsky

The Union filed a policy grievance contesting the Employer's position that surplus employees who accept pay in lieu of notice and apply for restricted competitions under Article 20.2.3 of the collective agreement cannot grieve those competitions.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that Article 20.2.3 creates a substantive right to apply for restricted competitions, and therefore disputes over that right are arbitrable under the collective agreement and the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act.

The Board further determined that the standard of review for such grievances is the 'bad faith' standard, similar to that applied to unclassified employees.

The grievor was surplussed and assigned to a lower-rated position under the Public Service Act prior to the negotiation of a first collective agreement between AMAPCEO and the Crown.

Years later, he sought a direct assignment without competition to a higher-rated position, arguing his rights under the Public Service Act had vested during the statutory freeze period.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the pre-collective bargaining statutory regime and the post-collective bargaining regime could not co-exist.

The collective agreement superseded the regulation, and enforcing the grievor's claimed statutory rights would conflict with the rights of other employees under the collective agreement to compete for vacant positions.

The Union grieved the Employer's decision to deny six surplus employees pay in lieu of notice under Article 20.2.1 of the collective agreement.

The Employer argued that operational requirements necessitated the employees working their six-month notice period, assigning them to a central facility.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that the Employer's withholding of consent for pay in lieu is subject to arbitral review for reasonableness and bona fide business reasons.

The Board found that the work assigned was 'make work' and that the Employer failed to establish a legitimate operational need for the grievors at their specific workplace.

The grievance was allowed, and the grievors were awarded six months' pay in lieu of notice.

At the hearing of a human rights complaint, the parties advised the Board of Inquiry that a settlement had been reached.

The complainant confirmed satisfaction with the settlement terms, agreed not to pursue the complaint further, and agreed to a five-year confidentiality clause regarding the settlement and allegations.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission elected not to present additional evidence.

Based on the settlement and the parties' statements, the Board of Inquiry dismissed the complaint.

The respondents brought preliminary motions to dismiss a human rights complaint alleging race discrimination in employment, arguing that the Commission failed to meet statutory conditions precedent and that the delay and lack of particulars amounted to an abuse of process.

The Board of Inquiry held that it lacked general jurisdiction to review the Commission's pre-inquiry procedures, but could intervene if procedural failures amounted to an abuse of process.

The Board found that the combination of the complainant's delay, the Commission's delay, and the lack of particulars for certain allegations seriously prejudiced the respondents' ability to defend themselves.

Consequently, the vague allegations were stricken from the complaint.

The Board also granted the Commission's motion to amend the complaint and the respondents' motion to quash a premature summons for documents.