Richard Brown

The grievor, a black employee, filed a grievance after a white co-worker used a racial slur during an off-duty social outing.

The employer investigated and concluded the incident was not work-related, issuing only a letter of counsel to the co-worker.

The union argued the employer failed to comply with its obligations under the Human Rights Code to address racial discrimination.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that the off-duty conduct lacked a sufficient nexus to the workplace to constitute discrimination 'with respect to employment' under section 5(1) of the Code.

The union referred a grievance to arbitration regarding compensation for missed meal breaks, which was resolved by minutes of settlement.

The settlement required the employer to advise correctional officers to note missed breaks on their regular sign-in and out sheets.

The employer subsequently issued a memo directing officers to use a separate sign-in sheet in the Minimum Duty Sergeant's office.

The union argued this violated the settlement.

The arbitrator agreed, finding the settlement clearly required missed breaks to be recorded on the regular shift sign-in and out sheets.

The union referred two grievances to arbitration.

The grievor elected not to attend the hearing because he objected to being represented by union counsel, despite being warned that his non-attendance could result in the grievances being dismissed.

The union sought an adjournment to allow the grievor to reconsider, while the employer requested that the grievances be dismissed.

The arbitrator held that the grievor did not have a compelling reason for absenting himself, as the union is the party to the arbitration and is entitled to select and instruct counsel.

The request for an adjournment was denied and the grievances were dismissed.

The grievor's employment was terminated, and a grievance was filed.

The grievor failed to attend the first scheduled hearing date and subsequently failed to maintain contact with union counsel or attend the rescheduled hearing date to address the employer's motion to dismiss.

The Grievance Settlement Board granted the employer's motion and dismissed the grievance, finding that the grievor's repeated failure to attend without adequate notice or justification caused substantial delay and prejudice.

The grievor, a banquet server, was terminated following a loud, profane verbal altercation with a co-worker in a service corridor.

The union grieved the termination, arguing the grievor was provoked by the co-worker's persistent badgering about full-time status hours.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the grievor's outburst was disproportionate to the alleged provocation and that he had ample opportunity to end the interaction before escalating.

Given the grievor's extensive recent disciplinary record for similar misconduct, the termination was upheld.

The grievor, an eligibility adjudicator, suffered a work-related injury to her wrists and forearms.

The employer offered her modified work as a helper in records control, which the grievor claimed exceeded her medical restrictions and caused flare-ups of her injuries.

After the grievor stopped attending work, the employer terminated her employment for unjustified absence under article 13.05 of the collective agreement.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the employer breached its duty to accommodate by failing to initiate a dialogue about alternative accommodations after the grievor reported injuries from the modified work.

The Board held that the grievor's absence was justified and ordered her reinstatement.

However, due to the grievor's lack of cooperation in the accommodation process and her misconduct in making inappropriate comments about the employer to a third party, the Board imposed a one-month disciplinary suspension and reduced her backpay by 25%.

The grievor, a coach technician, was terminated for taking four litres of windshield washer fluid from the employer's garage for personal use after being explicitly told by his supervisor to put it back.

The union grieved the termination, arguing the conduct did not amount to theft and that discharge was an excessive penalty.

The arbitrator found that the grievor committed theft, as he took the fluid for his own benefit despite knowing he was not entitled to do so.

Applying a contextual approach to discipline, the arbitrator upheld the discharge, noting the grievor's lack of candour, absence of necessity, prior disciplinary record, and failure to accept responsibility.

The grievance was dismissed.

The grievor, an LCBO employee, sought a transfer from Toronto to Brampton and relief from Saturday shifts, alleging the commute aggravated a groin injury and interfered with his ability to care for his daughter and elderly parents.

He also alleged the transfer denial was a reprisal for past grievances and health and safety complaints.

At the close of the union's case, the employer brought a motion for non-suit.

The Grievance Settlement Board granted the non-suit motion, finding the union failed to present sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case of discrimination based on disability or family status, or to prove reprisal.

The grievor's refusal to provide his current residential address or details about alternative care options precluded a finding that the employer's actions seriously interfered with a substantial family obligation or violated his medical restrictions.

The grievor was terminated for dishonesty after repeatedly lying to his employer about needing leg surgery to delay his return to work under a last chance agreement.

The union argued that the termination violated the Human Rights Code because the grievor's dishonesty was caused by a mental disability (adjustment disorder or depression) and the stigma associated with it.

The arbitrator found that while the grievor did suffer from an adjustment disorder constituting a handicap, the disability did not significantly impair his cognitive functioning or ability to choose to act otherwise.

The arbitrator concluded that the grievor's continued deceit was a calculated cover-up rather than a manifestation of his illness or an attempt to avoid stigma.

The termination under the last chance agreement was sustained.

The parties sought clarification regarding the interpretation and application of a prior settlement dated September 16, 2009.

On consent, the Grievance Settlement Board ordered that the total settlement amount payable was $10,139.73, from which the employer was entitled to deduct $4,339.90 for the recovery of WSIB benefits paid to the grievor prior to November 5, 2009.

The employer was directed to pay the net amount of $5,799.83 to the grievor.

The parties appeared before the Grievance Settlement Board for an interpretation of a memorandum of settlement.

The employer acknowledged that a required payment had taken too long to process.

The Vice-Chair ordered that the payment be made forthwith with interest.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the Employer to place the grievor on full salary at his current rate of pay pending his appointment as a Transportation Officer 2 with the Ministry of Transportation.

The grievor was obliged to accept any reasonable work assignment until the appointment took effect.

The Vice-Chair remained seized of the matter regarding implementation.

The union brought a motion seeking damages for non-compliance with minutes of settlement and requested an order for the production of documents.

The employer did not oppose the request.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the employer to produce all documents concerning its relationship with two individuals, including secondment agreements and documents related to termination and classified positions.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss a grievance alleging that an employee was denied an interview for a temporary assignment because of her disability.

The employer argued that the collective agreement provisions relating to job vacancies did not apply to temporary assignments and that, even if they did, it was not obliged to interview the grievor because a more senior qualified applicant was selected.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the preliminary motion, finding that the union was entitled to have the grievance heard on its merits because the facts alleged—denial of an interview due to disability while junior employees were interviewed—could constitute a breach of the Human Rights Code.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued an order amending a previous order dated January 16, 2007, regarding a policy grievance by AMAPCEO.

The amendment requires the Employer to provide an updated list of all persons not formally designated as employees who regularly attend at employer-controlled sites for more than ninety days, specifying how the total number of days is calculated.

The Association alleged that the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care failed to implement the terms of several settlements, some of which were the subject of a prior consent order.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued directions scheduling hearings to address the alleged non-compliance and ordered the employer to produce relevant documents concerning the posting and filling of positions, termination of non-public servants, and conversion of positions.

The union filed grievances objecting to the employer's use of police officers to escort inmates outside the correctional facility, alleging a violation of a 2001 Memorandum of Settlement (MOS).

The MOS restricted the use of police for community escorts, requiring the employer to first utilize classified correctional officers.

The central issue was whether the employer had to offer overtime to correctional officers who had not submitted availability sheets before resorting to police.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that, following the termination of the local overtime agreement, the MOS obligated the employer to make a reasonable effort to determine the availability of all classified correctional officers, including those not on the overtime list, before using police as escorts.

The Association requested pre-hearing production of materials relating to education officers in the Ministry of Education and consultants in the Government Services Delivery Cluster at the Ministry of Government Services.

The Grievance Settlement Board granted the requests on the condition that the materials be used exclusively for the proceeding and handled only by authorized individuals involved in the litigation.

The union requested an adjournment of a scheduled hearing because the grievor had secured new employment and was participating in a training program.

The employer consented to the adjournment on the condition that it be absolved of any financial liability for the period of the adjournment.

The Grievance Settlement Board granted the adjournment on that condition.

The Association requested production of materials relating to consultants engaged by the Government Services Delivery Cluster at the Ministry of Government Services.

The employer resisted producing emails sent or received by the consultants during specific periods, as well as documents relating to the FTE allotment for the Cluster.

The Grievance Settlement Board directed the employer to produce the materials, finding them arguably relevant to the issues raised by the policy grievance.