Reva Devins

The union grieved the termination of the grievor's employment.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the grievor reinstated on strict conditions for a two-year period.

The conditions require the grievor to provide medical notes for absences, explain non-medical absences in a timely manner, and stipulate that any attendance-related discipline will result in the specific penalty of discharge.

The time off work was deemed an unpaid leave of absence, with a two-day suspension on record.

The grievor, a candidate for a Customer Service Agent position, challenged the reasonableness of the scores he received during an evaluation process mandated by Minutes of Settlement.

The evaluation required a minimum score of 70% for the grievor to be offered the position.

The grievor scored 67.24% and challenged the marks awarded for an e-mail exercise and two interview questions.

The arbitrator found that while the grievor was entitled to one additional mark for the e-mail exercise, the interview scores were reasonable and the revised overall score of 68.24% still fell short of the required 70%.

The grievance was dismissed.

The union filed grievances alleging the employer violated the collective agreement by failing to assign regular days off on statutory holidays.

The employer had changed its scheduling practice to reduce staffing on statutory holidays, resulting in statutory holidays no longer falling on regular days off for employees.

The union argued this was an ad hoc change made in bad faith to avoid paying lieu days.

The arbitrator found the scheduling change was a legitimate, systemic operational change, not an ad hoc revision, and dismissed the grievances.

The parties entered into an expedited mediation-arbitration process to resolve grievances.

They signed Minutes of Settlement regarding grievances filed by the grievor.

An issue arose regarding whether the settlement included a grievance dated April 18, 2006.

The Vice-Chair determined that the Minutes of Settlement expressly included the April 18, 2006 grievance, as it was cited in the Style of Cause and the preamble, and its substance related to the continuation of conduct set out in previous grievances.

The union filed a grievance claiming the grievor was entitled to four hours of call back pay at time and one half after his manager called him at home while he was on sick leave to request a medical certificate.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the employer was entitled to request the medical note and that it was in the best interests of all parties to make the request in a timely manner.

There was no obligation to compensate the grievor for the phone call.

The union filed a grievance alleging that allocated assignments at the Brookside Youth Centre were improperly determined on the basis of gender, and sought premium pay for the grievor for shifts that were allegedly improperly reassigned.

The parties agreed that gender should not be considered in assigning Youth Service Officers, subject to operational requirements like search and escort duties.

The arbitrator found that there was no entitlement to premium pay in the circumstances and dismissed the grievance.

The union filed a grievance regarding the grievor's absence on August 19, 2005, which had been treated as unpaid leave.

The matter proceeded through an expedited mediation-arbitration process agreed upon by the parties for grievances at the Brookside Youth Centre.

The arbitrator allowed the grievance and ordered that a sick leave credit be substituted for the unpaid leave.

The union filed a grievance alleging that the employer improperly called in staff for escort duty before exhausting the Escort Officer list, seeking payment for a twelve-hour overtime shift for the grievor.

The arbitrator found that even if the employer failed to follow the call-in policy, the grievor was not entitled to an individual remedy because they were not on the overtime list on the date in question.

The grievance was dismissed.

The grievor, a long-service employee subject to a last chance agreement following a previous discharge for honesty-related misconduct, was discharged for allegedly stealing $20.00 from a co-worker's cash deposit.

The co-worker testified as an eyewitness to the theft, and a subsequent count confirmed the $20.00 shortage.

The arbitrator found the eyewitness testimony credible and in harmony with the preponderance of probabilities, while rejecting the grievor's explanations as inconsistent and uncorroborated.

The employer met its burden of proving the theft by clear, cogent, and compelling evidence.

The grievance was dismissed and the discharge upheld.