Richard L. Jackson

The Union grieved the Employer's failure to replenish the grievor's sick leave bank on January 1, 2011, following a mediated Memorandum of Agreement.

The grievor had been placed on a training course that took a two-week break over Christmas, during which she was placed on sick leave because the Employer refused to continue her regular salary.

The Employer argued that under the collective agreement, being on sick leave on December 31 and January 3 disqualified her from sick bank replenishment.

The arbitrator held that the strict terms of the collective agreement should not apply, as the sick leave designation during the break was a contrivance to provide compensation.

The arbitrator found the grievor was effectively 'at work' during the course and ordered the replenishment of her sick leave bank.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the Union to provide particulars to the Employer regarding two grievances filed by the grievor.

The particulars must include the who, what, when, and where of the facts relied upon, relevant medical reports, alleged collective agreement and legislative violations, and the remedies sought.

In a grievance concerning the shift of residential counsellors from Classified to Seasonal status, the Grievance Settlement Board issued a preliminary award on the procedural question of which party should present its evidence first.

The Board directed the employer to proceed first with its evidence for reasons of efficiency, as the employer was in a better position to clarify the complex staffing and scheduling changes that occurred between 1991 and 2003.

However, the Board explicitly decoupled the order of proceeding from the onus of proof, confirming that the union still bears the onus.

The union grieved the employer's decision to screen the grievor out of a job competition for a Senior Field Auditor position.

The employer screened out the grievor because she did not possess a university degree, which was a required qualification in the job posting.

The union argued that the grievor's prior audit experience should have been considered in lieu of the degree requirement.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that the employer had the right to set qualifications and did not act unreasonably in requiring a university degree, especially given that the grievor's relevant experience was not extensive enough to overcome the lack of the required educational credential.

The union filed grievances on behalf of an employee alleging the employer improperly excluded him from job competitions, denied him secondments, and created a stressful working environment.

The employee had purchased a home in another city anticipating the privatization of his workplace, which ultimately did not occur, leaving him with a long daily commute.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievances, finding no violation of the collective agreement, as the appointment and assignment of employees is a management right and there was no evidence of bad faith or discrimination.

The parties disputed the interpretation of 'career transition support' in a Memorandum of Settlement resolving the grievor's prior grievances.

The grievor, who was retiring from the public service, used the settlement funds to purchase a couch and loveseat for a room in her home to be used for volunteer church counselling.

The employer argued this expenditure fell outside the scope of career transition support.

The arbitrator held that in the context of a retiring employee transitioning to a volunteer calling, the purchase was a reasonable and appropriate use of the funds.

The union grieved the employer's decision to screen the grievor out of a competition for a Senior Field Auditor position.

The union argued that the job posting's educational requirements allowed for the grievor's accounting courses to substitute for a university degree or professional accounting designation.

The arbitrator rejected the union's interpretation, finding that the plain language and grammatical structure of the posting required candidates to possess either a professional accounting designation or a university degree that included or was supplemented by specific accounting courses.

The grievance was dismissed.

In a grievance arbitration under the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act, the Grievance Settlement Board issued an order for particulars and production following a mediation.

The union was ordered to provide the employer with written particulars of all allegations of fact relied upon, along with copies of all supporting documents.

The order specified that the particulars must detail what was done, when, where, and by whom, without needing to describe the evidence itself.

Failure to comply would preclude the union from introducing the documents or testimony without leave.

In a grievance arbitration concerning the grievor's termination, the employer sought an adjournment to apply to family court to lift or amend a sealing order on a Children's Lawyer report.

The employer argued the report was integral to its decision to terminate the grievor.

The union opposed the adjournment, citing delay and the unlikelihood of the employer's success in family court.

The arbitrator granted the adjournment, finding that the delay would not materially prejudice the grievor given the overall length of the proceedings, and that the employer would be prejudiced if denied the opportunity to seek access to a document it relied upon in its decision-making.

In a discharge arbitration, the union brought a motion to exclude a report by the Office of the Children's Lawyer that the employer had relied upon in its decision to terminate the grievor.

The report was part of a family court file that was subsequently sealed by a Superior Court judge.

The employer argued that because it had obtained and relied on the report before the sealing order was made, the report should be admissible to provide a complete picture of the termination decision.

The arbitrator held that the arbitration is a public proceeding and the sealing order must be respected.

The report and any viva voce evidence regarding its contents were ruled inadmissible.