Reva Devins

The Union brought a motion seeking an order to add ten vacation days to previously negotiated Minutes of Settlement, alleging the Employer misrepresented its ability to grant the days during mediation.

The Grievor had transferred from the Ontario Public Service to the Canada Revenue Agency and believed the Employer falsely claimed it could not transfer extra vacation days.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the motion, finding it inappropriate to unilaterally impose a term that was expressly considered and rejected during mediation, especially where the Grievor had already received substantial financial compensation.

The Board also found insufficient evidence of intentional misrepresentation or bad faith by the Employer.

The union grieved a three-day suspension imposed by the employer on the grievor for unsafe operation of a forklift, failing to report an accident, damaging property, and lying about the incident.

The parties agreed to an expedited mediation-arbitration process.

The arbitrator found that while the property damage was accidental, the grievor admitted to failing to report the accident and initially denying responsibility.

The arbitrator concluded that the discipline was appropriate and dismissed the grievance.

The grievor was suspended for one day for abandoning his workstation and for three days for insubordination and swearing at his supervisor.

The parties agreed to an expedited mediation-arbitration process.

The Vice-Chair found that the discipline imposed was excessive in the circumstances.

The one-day suspension for abandoning the workstation was upheld, but the three-day suspension for insubordination was reduced to one day.

The grievances regarding the supervisor's conduct were dismissed as the supervisor no longer supervised the grievor.

The grievors, casual employees, grieved the increase in the full-time complement at their retail location, which resulted in a reduction of their assigned hours.

The union argued the decision was unfair and inconsistent with staffing at other locations, seeking the removal of one full-time staff member.

The arbitrator found no evidence that the employer acted in an arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad faith manner in determining the full-time complement, nor any violation of the collective agreement.

The grievance was dismissed.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of a full-time Customer Service Representative who requested to be assigned strictly to the day shift.

The employer denied the request, and the union alleged a violation of Article 6.2 of the Collective Agreement.

The arbitrator found that while Article 6.2 requires certain shifts to be established, it does not confer the right for an employee to be assigned to a particular shift.

The grievance was dismissed.

The grievor, a Customer Service Representative at a retail store, assumed the duties of an Acting Assistant Manager during an extended absence.

She subsequently sought premium pay under Article 6.12(b) of the Collective Agreement.

The grievance was dismissed as both the union and the employer agreed that the provision was intended to apply solely to acting assignments at the warehouse and head office, not at retail stores.

The Grievor, an Income Support Specialist at the Ontario Disability Support Programme (ODSP), was discharged for alleged dishonesty, breach of trust, and conflict of interest.

The Employer alleged that the Grievor deliberately approved numerous benefits for six clients without following proper procedures or obtaining required documentation, resulting in approximately $100,000 in unsupported benefits.

The Grievor denied deliberate misconduct, claiming innocent mistakes and heavy workload.

The Grievance Settlement Board found the Grievor's explanations lacked credibility and concluded that the overwhelming evidence demonstrated a deliberate and dishonest pattern of ignoring eligibility requirements to advantage select clients.

The grievance was dismissed and the discharge upheld.

The parties reached an agreement regarding the implementation of paragraph 8 of the Minutes of Settlement dated April 9, 2009.

The employer agreed to distribute a hard copy of Schedule A to all employees who worked at the ODSP Mississauga office on that date.

The document will be printed on Ministry letterhead, signed by management and union stewards, and posted in the Brampton and Mississauga ODSP offices.

The Grievor, a casual employee, requested a transfer to a different geographic posting area because her husband found employment there.

The Employer agreed to the transfer but denied her request to transfer her seniority on compassionate grounds.

The Union grieved, arguing the Employer exercised its discretion in an arbitrary, discriminatory, and unfair manner.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding no evidence that the Employer acted in bad faith or contrary to its standard practice of requiring exceptional circumstances for seniority transfers.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued an order directing the implementation of a Memorandum of Settlement between the union and the employer.

The order set out a timeline and process for the parties to compile, exchange, and consolidate a list of names and addresses of employees who worked at the Mimico Correctional Centre between 1980 and 2005, in order to execute and send out required letters.

The union alleged the employer breached Minutes of Settlement (MOS) by failing to notify insurers of the grievor's reinstatement, and filed two additional grievances alleging discriminatory surplus/redeployment and failure to protect confidential medical information.

The arbitrator found no breach of the MOS, as some benefits were reimbursed, indicating insurers were notified.

The discrimination grievance was dismissed for lack of evidence, as the grievor's former position was eliminated due to corporate restructuring and she was properly redeployed within the bargaining unit.

The employer's preliminary objection to the medical information grievance was dismissed as a technical breach.

On the merits, the arbitrator found the employer's medical report was inadequately sealed and directed the employer to follow best practices for securing health information, but declined to award damages.

The Grievance Settlement Board held a hearing to determine the employer's compliance with a previous decision.

The Vice-Chair found the employer to be in substantial compliance but ordered the crediting of 4 vacation days and 1.5 short-term sick plan days to the grievor.

The grievor was also given a deadline to identify specific errors in the calculation of a retroactive lump sum payment, and directed to file a fresh grievance for any new accommodation issues.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of an employee regarding the rescheduling of a co-worker's compressed work week scheduled day off.

The employer conceded that it moved the scheduled day off outside of the three-week limit prescribed by the collective agreement.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued a declaration that the employer breached the agreement.

The union filed grievances alleging that the employer filled an Intake Worker position without holding a competition, in violation of the collective agreement.

The parties agreed to proceed via mediation/arbitration and agreed on the facts that the position should have been posted.

The arbitrator allowed the grievances and ordered the employer to post a vacancy for an Intake Worker restricted to certain employees, with back pay awarded if one of the grievors is successful.

The union filed grievances on behalf of several employees who were unsuccessful in a job competition for Intake Worker positions.

The employer acknowledged that some written tests were incorrectly marked and rescored them.

Following a review of the amended scores, the parties agreed that four grievors should have been awarded permanent positions.

The arbitrator ordered the employer to place those four grievors in the positions with full back pay, and dismissed the remaining three grievances.

The grievor, a seasonal employee, was not recalled for a third season due to performance concerns.

The employer moved to dismiss the resulting grievance on the basis that it was untimely.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the grievor was aware of the facts giving rise to the grievance by mid-April 2007, but the grievance was not filed until December 2007.

The Board declined to exercise its discretion under section 48(16) of the Labour Relations Act to extend the time limits, noting the significant, unexplained delay and the fact that the employer had already filled the seasonal contracts for the upcoming season.

The employer's motion was allowed and the grievance was dismissed.

The Union sought an order requiring the Employer to disclose assignment control sheets, expense claims, and time sheets for several employees to support a grievance alleging differential treatment regarding travel and expense policies.

The Employer argued the particulars provided were insufficient to justify the broad disclosure requested.

The Grievance Settlement Board allowed the motion in part, ordering disclosure for specific employees where the grievor had direct information about their expense claims, but denying disclosure where the allegations relied on vague third-party information.

The Employer brought a motion to dismiss certain allegations after the grievor refused to comply with a Board order requiring her to provide the names of co-workers who were told about her grievances.

The grievor argued she feared reprisals against her colleagues and sought to be excused from the order.

The Board held that the grievor could not unilaterally ignore a clear order and dismissed the insufficiently particularised allegations.

The Employer brought a motion to dismiss the grievances or, in the alternative, for an order for further particulars regarding the grievor's allegations of differential treatment, discrimination, and harassment.

The Union had refused to provide the names of co-workers allegedly treated differently, citing the grievor's fear of employer retaliation against them.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the particulars provided were insufficient, as the Employer is entitled to know the case it must meet.

The Board declined to dismiss the grievances but ordered the Union to provide full and sufficient particulars, including names, dates, and specific details of the alleged differential treatment.

The Employer brought a motion for an order compelling the grievor to attend the first scheduled day of arbitration, arguing the grievor had demonstrated an unwillingness to participate by missing a mediation session and pre-disciplinary meetings.

The Union opposed the motion, noting it had carriage of the grievance and the grievor intended to attend.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the motion, finding the requested order unusual and unnecessary at this stage, as the Employer would present its case first and had not shown how the grievor's absence would prejudice its ability to proceed.