Tatiana Wacyk

The Union failed to comply with a September 6, 2016 production order requiring the disclosure of the grievor's medical and benefits records.

After more than a year of non-compliance and the cancellation of previously scheduled hearing dates, the Union requested a new date to address other production issues.

The Employer resisted.

The Arbitrator directed the Registrar to set the matter down for a one-day hearing specifically to address the Union's failure to comply with the production order and the appropriate consequences.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to limit the scope of evidence the union could introduce regarding a poisoned workplace grievance.

The employer argued for the application of the Board's 'three-year rule' to exclude evidence of events dating back to 2008.

The union argued that the historical evidence provided necessary context.

The Arbitrator granted the employer's motion, finding that a four-year gap between the historical allegations and more recent events rendered the older evidence of tenuous relevance and would cause undue prejudice to the employer.

Evidence was limited to the three-year period predating the first grievance.

The Union requested four additional hearing dates in anticipation of the matter proceeding to hearing.

The Employer resisted setting dates until the Union complied with a prior production order for the grievor's medical records and benefit applications.

The Vice-Chair directed the parties to set four additional dates, but ordered the Union to provide confirmation of best efforts to comply with the production order within 30 days, and to satisfy the order by September 29, 2017, failing which the additional dates would be cancelled.

The insurer brought a motion to stay the arbitration proceeding pending the applicant's attendance at an orthopedic insurer examination.

The applicant had recently served new medical documentation, including a report diagnosing her with accident-related chronic pain and a possible rotator cuff tear.

The insurer argued it needed an orthopedic examination to respond to this new information.

The arbitrator found the examination was reasonably necessary due to the new diagnoses and granted the stay, noting that the insurer's third notice of examination complied with the requirements of section 44(5) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The grievor grieved his discharge from employment.

The parties agreed to an expedited process and requested a bottom-line decision without reasons.

After reviewing an Agreed Statement of Facts, video clips, and viva voce evidence regarding the context, mitigating factors, and the grievor's remorse, the Vice-Chair substituted the termination with a suspension without compensation from March 31, 2016, to December 31, 2016.

The grievor was ordered reinstated with full seniority effective January 1, 2017.