Andrew F. Camman

The employer brought a motion for an order for production and further particulars from the grievor, who grieved his discharge following a criminal charge for off-duty conduct.

The grievor had been acquitted of the criminal charge.

The employer sought further details of the grievor's explanation for his behaviour.

The Board found that the grievor had provided sufficient particulars in the grievance material and declined to compel disclosure of evidence that might be brought in response to the employer's case.

The Board ordered the grievor to produce the one document he currently intended to rely on, with any further documents or facts to be produced after the employer's case.

The complainant, a restaurant employee, alleged that a co-worker sexually harassed her by deliberately flicking her breast.

She reported the incident to management, who conducted an investigation.

The Tribunal found that the single incident constituted sexual harassment.

Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the employer's investigation was seriously flawed and unreasonable, and that management engaged in reprisal against the complainant after she asserted her legal rights, ultimately leading to her constructive dismissal.

The Tribunal awarded general damages against the co-worker and the employer, as well as special damages for lost wages against the employer.

The appellant received a retroactive lump sum payment for a Canada Pension Plan disability pension and brought a proposed class action claiming interest on the payment.

The Attorney General moved to strike the statement of claim.

The motion judge struck the claims for breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment but allowed the claims based on constructive trust and the inherent power of the court to award interest to proceed.

On appeal and cross-appeal, the Court of Appeal held that it was plain and obvious that none of the claims could succeed, as the comprehensive statutory scheme of the Canada Pension Plan does not provide for the payment of interest on benefits.

The appeal was dismissed, the cross-appeal was allowed, and the action was dismissed.

The grievors, Operational Managers, alleged the employer breached a 2002 memorandum of settlement by requiring them to participate in a selection process to reduce the number of managers from 26 to 13 following a decision not to complete the expansion of a facility.

The memorandum provided that staffing imbalances created by the settlement would not be resolved through a competition process.

The Board found that the staffing imbalance was not created by the 2002 settlement, but rather by the 2005 decision not to finish the expansion.

Therefore, the employer did not violate the memorandum by using a selection process to downsize.

The grievances were dismissed.

The grievors, Operational Managers, alleged the employer breached a 2002 memorandum of settlement by requiring them to compete for their positions during a 2005 downsizing.

The settlement prohibited resolving staffing imbalances created by the settlement through a competition process.

The Board found that the staffing imbalance was not created by the 2002 settlement, but rather by a 2005 government decision not to complete the expansion of the facility.

Therefore, the employer did not violate the settlement by using a selection process to downsize.

The grievances were dismissed.

The corporate respondent brought a motion seeking production of the complainant's clinical notes and records regarding her mental and psychological stability, arguing her erratic behaviour went to her credibility.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding no nexus between the sexual harassment and reprisal complaint and the requested medical records.

The complainant had not put her psychological state in issue, making the records irrelevant.

The Tribunal noted that credibility and reliability of testimony would be assessed in the normal course without granting a fishing licence into the complainant's private life.

The grievors requested that the Public Service Grievance Board reconsider its earlier decision dismissing their complaints regarding pay for performance.

The employer objected, arguing the Board was functus officio and lacked statutory authority to reconsider its decisions.

The Board agreed with the employer, finding that as a statutory tribunal, it does not possess inherent powers to reconsider a final decision in the absence of an express legislative mandate.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

The respondent worked as an illustrator for the appellant until her employment was terminated.

She initially filed an Employment Standards Act complaint against the employment agency that placed her, but later withdrew it and commenced a civil action for wrongful dismissal against the appellant.

The appellant moved to dismiss the action, arguing it was barred by s. 64.3(2) of the ESA, which prevents an employee from commencing a civil action relating to the same termination if they have filed a complaint.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the statutory bar only prevents a civil action against the same alleged employer against whom the complaint was filed.

The union filed grievances alleging sexual harassment by a managerial employee and sought his termination or reassignment.

The parties agreed to a preliminary procedure to determine three issues based on assumed facts.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that the union's pleadings disclosed a prima facie case of sexual harassment.

The Board further affirmed its jurisdiction to direct the employer to discipline or discharge a managerial employee in exceptional cases where absolutely necessary to effect a remedy.

However, the Board concluded that while the primary remedy of termination was not absolutely necessary in this case, the alternative remedies of removing the manager's supervisory powers or reassigning him might be appropriate.

A third party, Mr. Keating, was granted full participation rights in the grievance proceedings.

Having recently retained counsel, the third party requested an adjournment of several scheduled hearing dates.

Over the union's objection, the Vice-Chair granted the adjournment for the immediate hearing date and a subsequent date by agreement, but denied the request to adjourn dates scheduled for April, which had been set for some time.

The grievor, a chaplain, was suspended for insubordination after a dispute over the use of a worship centre.

She claimed she was constructively dismissed and refused to return to work, alleging a poisoned work environment.

The employer continued to pay her for several months, repeatedly requesting that she return to work or request a leave of absence.

When she failed to do so, the employer declared she had abandoned her position under section 20 of the Public Service Act.

The Public Service Grievance Board allowed the employer's preliminary motion and dismissed the grievance, finding the grievor was absent without official leave for more than two weeks without reasonable justification.

The grievors, former Area Managers, alleged they were constructively dismissed when their positions were eliminated and replaced by Area Vice President positions, for which they unsuccessfully competed.

The Employer raised a preliminary objection that the Board lacked jurisdiction.

The Board upheld the objection and dismissed the grievances, finding that the grievors failed to file within the 14-day statutory time limit and that the Board has no jurisdiction under the Public Service Act to adjudicate claims of constructive dismissal for Schedule I employees who were surplused rather than discharged for cause.

The union applied for a direction to settle a first collective agreement by arbitration under section 43 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

A termination application was also pending.

At the hearing, the employer offered to sign the union's proposed collective agreement and moved to dismiss the first contract application.

The union resisted, arguing the employer's offer was a tactical move to allow the termination application to proceed.

The majority of the Board dismissed the employer's motion, finding that the statutory preconditions for a first contract application were met and that the issue of whether collective bargaining had been unsuccessful required a full evidentiary hearing.

A dissenting Board member would have dismissed the application, finding that the employer's acceptance of the union's offer created a binding contract.

During a hearing for certification and an unfair labour practice complaint, a dispute arose over a question posed during cross-examination.

Union counsel asked a witness, the employer's housekeeping supervisor, whether she went on vacation with the owner of the nursing home.

Employer counsel objected on the grounds of witness privacy.

The Board ruled that the question was permissible to test the credibility of the witness's evidence, as both the owner and the supervisor had testified they went their separate ways and did not discuss the dismissed employee.

However, the Board limited the cross-examination, ruling that union counsel must accept the witness's answer and could not pursue the issue further.

The Board also denied the employer's request for an adjournment to seek judicial review, directing counsel to move to another area of cross-examination for the remainder of the day.

The complainant alleged that her union breached its duty of fair representation under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act by failing to properly communicate the terms of a settlement regarding her discharge grievance.

The settlement required the complainant to present herself for work by a specific date, failing which her grievance would be withdrawn.

The complainant, who was recovering from a work-related injury and awaiting surgery, was unaware of this requirement and failed to report, resulting in the withdrawal of her grievance.

The Board found that the union failed to satisfy its evidentiary onus to show it had properly communicated the settlement terms, concluding that this failure constituted arbitrary conduct.

The complaint was allowed, and the Board remained seized of the issue of damages.