Sara Slinn

The Employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss six grievances filed by the Union on behalf of a correctional officer, arguing undue delay pursuant to the doctrine of laches.

The grievances involved allegations of harassment, discrimination, and a disciplinary suspension.

The Arbitrator found that the delay of up to four and a half years was unreasonable and attributable to the Union, which failed to advance the grievances through the local mediation-arbitration protocol.

However, balancing the rights of the parties, the Arbitrator concluded that while the Employer suffered some prejudice due to faded memories, it was not sufficient to make it clearly improper to proceed.

The motion to dismiss was denied.

The Association filed a grievance on behalf of the complainant regarding the processes followed by the Respectful Workplace Office (RWO) in dealing with a complaint.

Following a hearing, the Arbitrator ordered that the Letter of Counsel and the DMA Close-out Letter issued to the complainant be deemed null and void and removed from all files.

The Arbitrator further ordered that the RWO file and all documentation relating to the complaint be deemed null and void as against the complainant and not be relied upon for any purpose.

The union filed three grievances alleging violations of the collective agreement.

At the hearing, the union withdrew the first grievance with prejudice, and the parties agreed to consolidate the second and third grievances.

The arbitrator issued a procedural order setting timelines for the provision of particulars, production, and the drafting of an agreed statement of facts, and scheduled the matter to proceed on the merits.

The Employer brought preliminary motions to dismiss a union grievance concerning a workplace fatality at a probation and parole office.

The Employer argued the grievance was barred by issue estoppel, abuse of process, or collateral attack because a Ministry of Labour Inspector had already investigated the incident and issued orders under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, which the Union did not appeal.

The Arbitrator found that the preconditions for issue estoppel were met, as the grievance and the Inspector's orders addressed the same legal and factual questions between the same parties.

The Arbitrator declined to exercise discretion to bypass issue estoppel, concluding that the grievance was barred and dismissing it.

The Union sought a further order for production of documents related to grievances alleging breaches of the Employer's duty to accommodate the Grievor's medical restrictions.

The Employer did not object to the order.

The Arbitrator directed the Employer to produce the Grievor's entire personnel file and all documents pertaining to the injury and accommodation by November 21, 2025.

The employer requested particulars regarding two grievances scheduled for hearing.

During a conference call, the parties agreed that an order for full particulars and disclosure was necessary to ensure an expeditious hearing.

The arbitrator ordered the union to provide full particulars by October 24, 2025, and the employer to respond and provide production by November 28, 2025.

The parties met to attempt to mediate a settlement of the grievance.

They agreed to continuation dates in April and May 2026 and established a timetable for the exchange of documents, particulars, and preliminary arguments.

The arbitrator issued a decision formalizing the agreed-upon case management schedule.

The parties met to attempt to mediate a settlement of the grievance.

They agreed to continuation dates in April 2026 and a case management schedule, including the use of 'will say' statements instead of viva voce evidence in chief.

The arbitrator issued a decision recording the agreed-upon timetable for the exchange of documents, particulars, and will say statements.

The union filed three identical grievances alleging constructive dismissal due to changes made to the grievors' positions in 2020 and 2022.

The employer raised preliminary objections that the grievances were in substance classification grievances outside the Board's jurisdiction and were filed outside the 30-day time limit.

The Arbitrator upheld the preliminary objections, finding the grievances were classification grievances and were not continuing grievances.

The Arbitrator declined to extend the time limit and dismissed the grievances.

The Union filed grievances on behalf of 28 Integrated Resource Management Technical Specialists, challenging the Employer's creation of temporary Resource Management Coordinator positions at a higher classification.

The Employer raised preliminary objections, arguing the grievances were disguised classification grievances outside the Board's jurisdiction and that the Union improperly expanded the scope of the grievances at arbitration.

The Arbitrator agreed, finding that the Union's new allegations of bad faith and arbitrary exercise of management rights were an impermissible expansion of the original grievances.

Furthermore, the core of the original grievances required comparing duties and determining proper classification, which falls outside the Board's jurisdiction under the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act and the collective agreement.

The grievances were dismissed.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued a procedural order directing the Union to provide final particulars of its case by August 8, 2025.

The Employer was ordered to advise the Union of any preliminary issues or motions by September 5, 2025.

The hearing is scheduled to resume on September 23, 2025.

The Union filed a grievance alleging the Employer breached the collective agreement and a prior settlement agreement.

The parties attended arbitration to resolve the dispute over the grievor's compensating time off (CTO) and vacation credits.

The arbitrator ordered that the grievor's 2025 CTO bank be reduced by 48 hours, but held that the Employer was not entitled to recover the over usage of 11.75 vacation credits from 2023.