Stephen Raymond

The Union filed policy and group grievances regarding Flex Work Arrangements (FWA) for Field Staff.

The arbitrator ordered that Field Staff whose FWAs were suspended in 2020 due to the pandemic will have them reinstated no later than 30 days prior to the Return to Office (RTO).

The Employer will also consider new FWA applications from field staff no earlier than 30 days prior to RTO, and may change flex days or work assignments, with employees having the option to decline the FWA to keep their assignment.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of the grievor.

During the course of the proceedings, the parties devoted considerable time to addressing production issues to ensure an effective and efficient hearing on the merits.

The parties requested a consent order to address all outstanding production issues.

The arbitrator issued the consent order, setting deadlines for the employer's response to the union's production request, the identification of any outstanding production issues, and the finalization of an Agreed Statement of Facts.

The Employer brought a non-suit motion and a motion to dismiss the grievance for mootness in an arbitration concerning the alleged bad faith reclassification of Executive Support ITSOs.

The Arbitrator applied the established principles for non-suit motions and found that the Union's evidence met the minimum threshold of credibility to establish a prima facie case.

Both the non-suit motion and the mootness motion were dismissed without detailed reasons, in accordance with the Board's practice when denying such motions.

The matter will continue on the scheduled dates.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to strike paragraphs of the union's particulars that pre-dated a 2015 grievance filed by the grievor.

The 2015 grievance, which involved family status accommodation and lost overtime, had been settled with a comprehensive release.

The arbitrator held that the settlement and release precluded the union from relying on facts relating to family status accommodation that occurred prior to the 2015 grievance.

However, particulars relating to training issues, which were not covered by the release, and events occurring after the 2015 grievance were permitted to remain.

The motion was granted in part.

The arbitrator issued a confidentiality order regarding the production of documents in a grievance proceeding.

The order restricted the release, use, and copying of the documents to the employer's counsel and one advisor for the purposes of the proceeding only.

The parties agreed to consolidate several grievance files before the Grievance Settlement Board.

The arbitrator ordered the consolidation and directed the Union to provide particulars in respect of the consolidated matters by a specified date.

In an ongoing grievance arbitration under the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act, the parties failed to meet a previously established timetable regarding amounts the employer asserted were owing.

Following a hearing, the arbitrator ordered a new timetable, requiring the union to advise the employer of its position on amounts owing for the 2015-2019 period by November 20, 2020, and for the pre-2015 period by January 29, 2021.

The union filed a grievance alleging the employer failed to apply a negotiated 2.9% general wage increase to the wait staff classification on January 1, 2019.

The parties had previously signed a memorandum of settlement providing for the increase, but the finalized collective agreement specified exact hourly rates.

Following a statutory increase in the minimum wage to $14.00, the wait staff rate fell below the minimum and was raised to $14.00 by operation of law.

The union argued the 2.9% increase should apply to the new $14.00 rate.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, holding that the explicit rates in the ratified collective agreement govern over the memorandum of settlement, and the arbitrator lacked jurisdiction to award an increase not reflected in the collective agreement's wage schedule.

The grievor, a Customer Service Representative, filed a grievance alleging the employer breached the Collective Agreement by issuing a three-day suspension without pay.

The discipline was imposed for violations of the Respectful Workplace Policy, specifically for sending highly offensive and inappropriate emails containing derogatory language to a female colleague.

The arbitrator found the grievor's behaviour warranted discipline and that the three-day suspension was modest and just in the circumstances.

The grievance was dismissed.

The applicant filed an application against the responding party union, with the employer intervening.

Having regard to a letter from the applicant, the Ontario Labour Relations Board terminated the application.

The applicant, a former professional hockey goaltender, filed an application alleging the respondent union violated its duty of fair representation by withdrawing his grievance regarding unpaid salary.

The respondent and intervenor raised a preliminary objection to the Board's jurisdiction.

The Board found that the applicant's employment was entirely in the United States and lacked a substantial connection to Ontario.

The fact that the union's head office is in Ontario did not confer jurisdiction.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed an application with the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The parties subsequently reached a settlement.

Having regard to the settlement, the Board ordered the application terminated.

The applicant filed a duty of fair representation complaint against the union.

The union requested that the Board dismiss the application for failing to disclose a prima facie case.

The Board dismissed the union's motion, finding that the allegations, if left unanswered, could lead to a finding of a violation of the Act.

The Board directed the applicant to file submissions addressing the union's assertion that the requested remedy had already been provided and responding to the union's factual assertions.

The parties requested an adjournment of the application.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board adjourned the matter sine die for a period not exceeding one year, after which it will be deemed terminated if no party requests to proceed.

The applicant filed a duty of fair representation complaint against the union regarding the handling and settlement of his grievance.

The Board found it had no jurisdiction to inquire into events occurring prior to January 1, 1998, as the statutory amendments granting jurisdiction were not retroactive.

Regarding the remaining allegations, the Board exercised its discretion not to inquire further, finding that the union acted reasonably in attempting to resolve the matter when the arbitrator was unavailable and in ultimately accepting the employer's final offer over the applicant's objections.

The applicant filed an unfair representation complaint against the trade union.

The union brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the application for delay, noting the events occurred by April 2000 but the application was not completed until October 2001.

The Board directed the applicant to confirm the date of the events and provide an explanation for the delay before ruling on the union's motion to dismiss.

Following a municipal amalgamation, the Board held a hearing to determine whether 40 percent of the employees in the agreed bargaining unit were unrepresented by a bargaining agent immediately before the changeover date.

The Board found that 17 out of 43 employees (39.5%) were unrepresented.

Because the Board does not round up percentages, the 40 percent threshold was not met.

Consequently, the representation vote ballot would only include the choice between the two competing unions, OPSEU and UAW, without a 'no union' option.

The applicant requested to withdraw her application before the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The Board granted the request and the application was withdrawn with leave of the Board.

The applicant filed an application alleging a violation of section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The responding trade union brought a motion to dismiss the application on the grounds that it related to internal union constitution matters, bargaining proposals, and sought incomprehensible relief.

The Board directed the applicant to file submissions in response to the motion to dismiss before making a determination.

The applicant filed a complaint against the responding unions.

Following a consultation, the Board issued a procedural direction on consent.

The applicant was directed to provide further particulars and a draft agreed statement of facts by December 31, 2001.

The responding parties were directed to respond and provide documents by March 12, 2002.

The matter was scheduled to continue on April 16 and 17, 2002.