Ali Saghari

The Union filed four consolidated grievances alleging the Employer violated the collective agreement, the Human Rights Code, and other statutes by cancelling flexible work arrangements and denying accommodation requests with insufficient notice.

The Employer brought a preliminary objection arguing the Union's particulars were entirely insufficient and failed to establish a prima facie case.

The Arbitrator agreed, finding the Union failed to provide basic details (who, what, when, where, why) necessary for the Employer to know the case it had to meet.

Given the complete lack of particulars despite multiple requests over a prolonged period, the Arbitrator declined to give the Union another opportunity to amend and dismissed the grievances in their entirety.

The Employer brought a preliminary motion to strike certain particulars filed by the Union in relation to five grievances alleging harassment and discrimination based on disability.

The Employer argued the particulars should be struck based on a prior settlement, the 'three-year rule', and res judicata/abuse of process due to a prior arbitration decision by Arbitrator Leighton.

The Arbitrator granted the motion, striking paragraph 7 as it was barred by a prior settlement release.

The Arbitrator also struck the remaining disputed particulars, finding they either violated the three-year rule or constituted an abuse of process because they related to matters that were or ought to have been raised in the prior arbitration.

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.