Tatiana Wacyk

The Employer requested an order requiring the Union to provide written particulars of the allegations advanced in the grievances, specifically the 'who, what, when, and where'.

The Arbitrator granted the request, directing the Union to set out what was alleged to have been done, when, where, by what means, and by whom, and to identify any individuals whose actions were attributed to an organization.

The Arbitrator emphasized that conclusory statements based on unparticularized allegations of fact are insufficient.

The Union filed a policy grievance challenging the Employer's requirement that employees complete detailed Attending Physician Statements for short-term disability/sick leave and accommodation requests, and submit them to a third-party provider (Oncidium).

The Arbitrator held that requiring the STD/Sick Leave form in the first instance for absences over 5 days breached the Collective Agreement, which only required a basic medical certificate provided to the supervisor.

The Arbitrator also found the Accommodation form was inappropriately broad and intrusive at the initial stage of the accommodation process.

Finally, the Arbitrator ruled that the Employer must pay for the completion of the forms if they require a medical examination.

The Union brought a motion for production of documents in relation to a dismissal grievance and a harassment and discrimination grievance that were ordered to be heard together.

The Arbitrator ordered the Ministry of the Solicitor General to produce all records within its possession and control regarding the discipline of employees other than the grievor in relation to the death of an inmate.

The Union brought a motion to have three grievances (Dismissal, Attendance Support and Management Program (ASMP), and Harassment and Discrimination) heard together.

The Employer opposed the motion and requested the Harassment and Discrimination grievance be deferred pending a College of Nurses disciplinary proceeding.

The Arbitrator ordered that the Dismissal and Harassment and Discrimination grievances be heard together, as they involved allegations of a pattern of disparate treatment.

The ASMP grievance was ordered to proceed as a stand-alone grievance because it involved a broader inquiry and different witnesses.

The Arbitrator declined to defer the Harassment and Discrimination grievance.

The Union undertook to provide a list of remaining grievances to the Employer by June 7, 2021.

The Arbitrator noted that if the Union fails to do so, submissions will be heard regarding whether all the grievances should be dismissed.

The Employer requested an order requiring the Union to provide written particulars of the allegations advanced in the grievances, specifically the 'who, what, when, and where' of each allegation.

The arbitrator granted the request, directing the Union to provide detailed particulars, including what was alleged to have been done, when, where, by what means, and by whom, and identifying any individuals whose actions were attributed to an organization.

The hearing date was adjourned on consent.

The Association sought an adjournment of the scheduled hearing because the complainant failed to provide necessary particulars and submitted a medical note indicating an inability to attend any meetings going forward.

The parties agreed to an adjournment to allow the Association to clarify the complainant's circumstances and ability to participate.

The Employer reserved its right to take any position regarding the complainant's failure to comply with a previous order and failure to attend.

The employer requested particulars of the grievance.

The association advised that the complainant was medically unable to provide the necessary information until September 8, 2020, but could not share the medical note without permission.

To preserve the scheduled hearing date, the employer agreed to a truncated timeframe.

The arbitrator directed the association to provide the particulars by September 17, 2020.

The Employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss a set of consolidated grievances regarding the transfer of Management Biologist positions from the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry to the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks.

The Employer argued the grievances failed to make out a prima facie case and constituted stand-alone challenges to management rights outside the Board's jurisdiction.

The Arbitrator dismissed the motion, finding that the grievances raised factual disputes regarding whether vacancies were created that required posting under the collective agreement, and that these allegations provided the Board with derivative jurisdiction to review the exercise of management rights.

The Association requested the production of all documentation in a Workplace Discrimination and Harassment Prevention (WDHP) file regarding an investigation into the Complainant.

The Association alleged the investigation was initiated as a reprisal for the Complainant enforcing his collective agreement rights.

The Employer resisted production, arguing it was premature and would prejudice the discipline process.

The Arbitrator ordered the production of the documents, finding them arguably relevant to the Association's reprisal allegations.

Three correctional officers with 15 to 20 years of service were dismissed for gross dereliction of duty, including failing to complete watch tours, manipulating the OPMAN system, and failing to complete accurate inmate counts.

The arbitrator found that while the conduct was serious and could justify dismissal, the grievors' remorse, taking of full responsibility, and significant discipline-free service indicated they were rehabilitatable.

The arbitrator rescinded the dismissals and substituted a 20-day suspension without pay, reinstating the grievors without back wages.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the Employer's WSIB Advisor to disclose documents relating to the grievor's WSIB claim to counsel for both the Employer and the Association.

In an interim decision regarding a grievance over a Targeted Direct Assignment (TDA) process, the arbitrator determined whether the Association could introduce the complainant's prior job descriptions as evidence.

The parties had agreed to an expedited protocol requiring the Association to provide a chart demonstrating how the complainant met the entry-level qualifications.

The arbitrator ruled that it was not appropriate for the Association to include prior job descriptions that were not before the decision-makers when the complainant was initially found not to have met the entry-level qualifications.

The Employer requested an order requiring the Union to provide written particulars of the grievor's allegations concerning discrimination, harassment, and failure to accommodate.

The Arbitrator granted the request, directing the Union to set out the 'who, what, when, and where' of each allegation, including identifying by name any individual whose actions are attributed to an organization, no later than 30 days prior to the next hearing date.

The union filed a grievance alleging that a manager made inappropriate comments regarding the union's convention, which interfered with the grievor's right to participate in lawful union activities.

The parties reached a consent decision in which the employer acknowledged the comments were inappropriate for the workplace, expressed regret for the impact on the grievor, and affirmed its obligation under the collective agreement to recognize the right of bargaining unit members to participate in union activities without management influence.

The employer brought a preliminary motion challenging three allegations raised by the union on the eve of arbitration—that the grievor had completed his probationary period, and that his termination violated the Human Rights Code and the Public Service of Ontario Act.

The employer argued these allegations constituted an improper expansion of the original grievance, which only alleged the termination was untimely, unjust, without cause, and/or too severe.

The Arbitrator agreed, finding that the new allegations were not inherent in the original grievance and had not been raised during the grievance process, thereby depriving the employer of the opportunity to investigate and resolve them.

The allegations were ruled not arbitrable.

The Union sought to interrupt the Grievor's testimony to accommodate the pre-arranged evidence of her family physician.

The Employer objected, arguing it would be prejudiced in its cross-examination and risk having to recall the physician.

The Arbitrator ruled that the Union may interrupt the testimony, noting the difficulty of scheduling physicians and the Board's reluctance to dictate how parties present their case.

The Employer failed to demonstrate compelling prejudice.

The Union filed a policy grievance alleging the Employer violated the Collective Agreement by not providing vacation credits to permanent part-time employees for straight-time hours worked over and above their normal weekly hours.

The Employer argued that part-time employees' vacation credits are pro-rated based on their normal scheduled weekly hours, consistent with the treatment of full-time employees who also do not accrue additional vacation for extra hours worked.

The Arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that the Collective Agreement and past practice supported pro-rating based on normal scheduled hours, and that clear language would be required to deviate from this formula.

The Union sought production of materials, including video recordings, arguably relevant to the grievances.

The Arbitrator ordered the Employer to produce the requested materials to Union counsel by January 31, 2019.

The employer sought to bring a preliminary motion arguing that the Grievance Settlement Board lacked jurisdiction to award human rights damages for a psychological injury compensable under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act.

The union objected to hearing this as a preliminary matter.

The Arbitrator allowed the union's objection, finding that bifurcating the hearing would not be efficient, as the jurisdictional issue was complex, intertwined with the merits, and might become moot if the grievance failed.

The matter was ordered to proceed on the merits.