Andrew Baker

The Employer brought preliminary motions seeking to bifurcate the hearing into liability and remedy phases, and to delay the testimony of the Union's expert witness due to an incomplete exchange of particulars.

The Vice-Chair dismissed both requests, ruling that the Union was entitled to present its case as it saw fit, including calling medical evidence to establish the effect of the alleged breach of health and safety provisions.

The Vice-Chair also declined to interfere with the scheduling of the expert witness, noting that the parties had sufficient time to exchange particulars.

The Employer brought a motion to dismiss several grievances related to the implementation of a Memorandum of Agreement concerning a new pay framework and the granting of merit increases to certain employees.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievances in part.

The Board found it lacked jurisdiction over general complaints about the pay framework where no dispute existed between the parties, except for specific allegations of non-compliance.

The Board also dismissed grievances alleging that other employees received preferential merit increases, as there was no allegation that the Employer's actions violated the grievors' rights under the collective agreement.

The grievor was released from his position pursuant to s. 22 of the Public Service Act.

The union grieved the dismissal, arguing the grievor was no longer on probation.

The employer contended that the grievor's probation period was interrupted by a strike, relying on a Return to Work Protocol.

The arbitrator held that the Protocol did not take away the collective agreement right of classified employees to a fixed probation period that continues to run during absences.

Therefore, the grievor was no longer on probation at the time of his release.

The union applied for interim relief under s. 48(12) of the Labour Relations Act to revert to the old vacation protocol pending the disposition of a grievance challenging the employer's new province-wide vacation protocol for correctional officers.

The Grievance Settlement Board applied the two-fold test for interim relief.

Without deciding if there was an arguable case, the Board found the balance of harm favoured the employer, as reverting to the old protocol mid-year would cause significant administrative difficulties, require hiring and training new unclassified officers, and disrupt existing vacation plans, while only benefiting a minority of officers.

The motion for interim relief was denied.

The union filed a grievance alleging the employer violated the collective agreement regarding a vacation protocol and applied for interim relief.

The employer sought an order directing the union to provide further particulars of its case.

The Vice-Chair ordered the union to provide written particulars of the alleged violations, the adverse impact if interim relief is not granted, and the facts supporting its estoppel argument.

The employer was also ordered to provide particulars in response.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss a grievance filed in October 1996 regarding alleged inhumane treatment and harassment that occurred prior to November 1988.

The grievor claimed the employer's actions caused his mental illness and inability to work, leading to his placement on Long Term Income Protection (LTIP) and CPP disability.

The Grievance Settlement Board found the grievance was not timely filed, as the circumstances giving rise to the complaint were known to the grievor by August 1991 at the latest.

The Board declined to exercise its discretion under section 48(16) of the Labour Relations Act to extend the time limits, noting the extreme delay of over five years, the lack of due diligence, and the substantial prejudice to the employer.

The grievance was dismissed.

The union filed a group grievance alleging that the pro-rating of fully paid sick days under a compressed work week agreement violated a prior Grievance Settlement Board decision.

The grievors, who worked 12-hour shifts, argued that each fully paid sick day should be treated as one whole day regardless of length.

The Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the employer had fully complied with the specific language of the collective agreement and the local compressed work week agreement regarding short-term sickness pay.

The prior decision relied upon by the union dealt with threshold purposes for an attendance program, not the calculation of sick pay.

The grievor, a non-engineer who had historically been paid the same salary as professional engineers, filed a grievance after a new collective agreement for engineers resulted in a significant pay disparity.

The employer brought preliminary motions to dismiss the grievance for lack of jurisdiction and untimeliness.

The Board dismissed the employer's motions, finding that it had jurisdiction to hear allegations of a breach of a working condition or term of employment.

The Board also extended the time limits for filing the grievance, noting the delay was bona fide, the grievance had significant ongoing monetary implications, and the employer was not prejudiced.

The union challenged the employer's calculation of the continuous service dates for two employees following their conversion from unclassified to classified status pursuant to settlement agreements.

For the first employee, the union argued his prior fee-for-service work should be included in his continuous service date based on a 1990 tribunal decision and subsequent agreements.

For the second employee, the union argued her continuous service date should reflect a 'latent application' of a return-to-work protocol regarding strike time and match the treatment of another group of employees.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed both claims, finding the employer correctly calculated the continuous service dates in accordance with the collective agreement and the specific terms of the settlement agreements, and that the employees could not retroactively claim benefits they were not entitled to when unclassified.

The union brought a motion alleging the employer abused process by breaching an undertaking to search for suitable positions for the grievor throughout the Ontario Public Service (OPS), rather than just within the Ministry of Health.

The union sought costs, general damages, and an order directing the search.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the employer had undertaken to search throughout the OPS concurrently with the Ministry search.

The Board directed the employer to identify possible job matches across the OPS by a specified date, but found it premature to award general damages or rule on the adequacy of the search, and reserved judgment on costs.

The grievor, an administrative assistant, alleged that the employer discriminated against her on the basis of race and union activity during a temporary assignment and when she was denied a subsequent temporary position in the Blood Program.

The employer maintained that the grievor lacked the necessary skills for the temporary assignment, which was not extended due to performance issues and lack of need.

The subsequent position was awarded to a more qualified candidate following an interview process.

The Grievance Settlement Board found no evidence of bad faith, racial discrimination, or anti-union animus in the employer's actions.

The grievance was dismissed.

The applicants, four fire alarm technicians, applied to terminate the respondent union's bargaining rights.

The union raised a jurisdictional challenge, arguing the applicants were 'full-time fire fighters' under the Fire Departments Act and thus excluded from the Labour Relations Act.

The Board found that the three full-time technicians performed duties integral to fire protection and fell within the statutory definition of full-time fire fighters, excluding them from the Act.

However, the Board held that the single part-time technician was not excluded and allowed the termination application to proceed with respect to her alone.