Andrew Lynes

In a grievance arbitration, the parties sought a direction regarding the production of certain documents by the Employer.

The Arbitrator directed the Employer to produce unredacted copies of a forensic investigation report and an anonymous disclosure of wrongdoing to Union counsel.

The production was ordered subject to strict confidentiality conditions, including that the documents only be used for the purposes of the proceeding and be returned or destroyed at its conclusion.

The employer brought a preliminary objection regarding the timeliness of the complainant's Form 1 filing.

The complainant did not attend the hearing.

The Board found that the Form 1 was filed on January 9, 2025, well past the 14-day deadline following the December 11, 2024 denial of the grievance.

As the filing was out of time, the Board concluded it had no jurisdiction to hear the case and dismissed the complaint.

Two correctional officers filed grievances alleging they were bullied and harassed by their sergeant while working in segregation review.

The arbitrator found the grievors' evidence credible and concluded that the sergeant's repeated yelling, demeaning comments, and aggressive behaviour created a toxic work environment.

The conduct was found to be a marked departure from reasonable behaviour with no legitimate workplace purpose, satisfying the definition of workplace harassment under the collective agreement and the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The grievances were allowed and the matter remitted to the parties to address remedy.

The employer requested the consolidation of two complaints brought by different employees arising from the same job competition for a Corporal/Correctional Supervisor position.

The employer argued that the complaints shared common questions of law and fact, including a jurisdictional objection regarding the collective agreement.

The Chair of the Public Service Grievance Board found significant overlap in evidence and argument and re-assigned the second complaint to the Vice Chair handling the first complaint, leaving the final determination on consolidation or concurrent hearings to that Vice Chair.

The parties agreed to remit the issue of whether the complainant should have been converted into a Youth Justice Trainer position effective July 31, 2022, for an expedited determination without reasons.

The arbitrator directed the employer to place the complainant into the position on a permanent basis retroactive to that date, with all commensurate compensation and benefits, and deemed the probationary period completed.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision regarding a workplace investigation into an incident between a Black grievor and a white colleague.

While the arbitrator found the investigation procedurally flawed, he dismissed the claim that it was tainted by anti-Black racism or unconscious bias.

The Divisional Court granted the application, finding that the proper articulation of the test for prima facie discrimination is a question of central importance subject to a correctness standard of review.

The court held that the arbitrator misapprehended the test by requiring racism to be the 'dominant possibility' and by misapplying the shifting evidential burdens.

The discrimination claim was remitted to the arbitrator.

The complainant filed a grievance alleging he was suspended for three days without just cause for abuse of sick leave.

A hearing on the merits was scheduled, but the complainant failed to attend.

When directed to provide reasons, the complainant explained he had forgotten about the hearing and accepted an overtime shift.

The Employer sought dismissal of the complaint.

The Public Service Grievance Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the complainant's failure to attend because he simply forgot and took a shift indicated a lack of interest in having the complaint adjudicated and a lack of respect for the Board's processes.

The parties attempted to settle eight consolidated grievances through mediation but were unsuccessful.

The union undertook to provide particulars in preparation for arbitration but failed to do so by the agreed deadline.

Following a conference call hearing, the arbitrator ordered the union to provide full written particulars of the material facts on which it relies by a specified date, warning that failure to comply could result in the exclusion of evidence or dismissal of the grievances.

The complainant filed a grievance alleging he was disciplined without just cause when suspended for three days for abuse of sick leave.

A mediation/arbitration hearing was scheduled, but the complainant failed to appear without notice.

The Public Service Grievance Board adjourned the proceedings and directed the complainant to provide a written explanation for his failure to appear, failing which the complaint would be dismissed.

Three correctional officers grieved the employer's refusal to indemnify their legal costs incurred in defending criminal charges of aggravated assault arising from a use of force incident against an inmate.

The criminal charges were withdrawn.

The employer argued the officers were not entitled to indemnification because they engaged in 'code of silence' behaviour following the incident, demonstrating bad faith.

The Grievance Settlement Board allowed the grievance, finding that under Article COR 14.1.2 of the collective agreement, the requirement of good faith applies only to the acts that led to the criminal charges.

Since the employer's own investigation concluded the force used was justified and reasonable, the good faith condition was met.

During a mediation-arbitration hearing, the employer requested full particulars from the union regarding two consolidated grievances.

The parties agreed on a deadline for the provision of particulars.

The arbitrator ordered the union to provide full particulars to the employer by the agreed date.

The union filed a policy grievance alleging the employer violated the collective agreement by failing to recall a senior seasonal employee to his Far North Specialist position, and instead distributing his work to four less senior Biologist 1 employees.

The arbitrator found that while there was some overlap in duties, the core functions and responsibilities of the grievor's position, which included a leadership role and program coordination, were not substantially similar to the entry-level tasks performed by the Biologist 1 employees.

The grievance was dismissed.

The union filed a grievance alleging the employer miscalculated the grievor's Continuous Service Date (CSD).

The grievor had a break in service between the end of a fixed-term contract in May 2016 and the start of a new position in October 2016, which was secured through a settlement of a prior grievance.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that the collective agreement clearly required resetting the CSD after a break in employment greater than 13 weeks.

Furthermore, the arbitrator held that the prior settlement was final and binding, precluding any review of the employer's conduct leading up to that settlement.

The complainant filed a grievance alleging that her supervisor downgraded her annual performance evaluation in retaliation for a previous workplace harassment complaint.

The employer raised a preliminary objection to the Board's jurisdiction.

The Board held that under section 4(2) of O. Reg. 378/07, it has no jurisdiction to entertain complaints regarding the evaluation of a public servant's performance, even where bad faith or retaliation is alleged.

The complaint was dismissed.

The complainant, a Deputy Superintendent at a correctional facility, grieved a 2-day suspension for insubordination and unauthorized use of a Ministry purchasing card.

The complainant had used his purchasing card to hire a private handwriting expert to investigate a suspected compromised correctional officer, despite being told by regional management that such an expert was unnecessary.

The Public Service Grievance Board found that the complainant knew he required authorization, proceeded without it, and defied clear direction from his superiors.

The Board dismissed the grievance, holding that the 2-day suspension was an appropriate disciplinary response for a senior manager who substituted his own judgment for that of his superiors.

The union grieved the employer's decision to pro-rate the grievor's annual merit increase after she returned to her bargaining unit position from an acting management assignment.

The employer argued that the merit increase should be pro-rated based on the time actually worked in the bargaining unit position during the previous 12 months.

The arbitrator held that the collective agreement language did not link the merit increase to performance and that the provisions governing return from temporary assignments required the grievor to be placed in the position she would have been in had she continuously occupied her home position.

The grievance was allowed.

The parties consented to an order requiring mutual disclosure of all materials regarding the grievor's Workers Safety and Insurance Board files.

The arbitrator ordered the grievor to disclose all materials in her possession, including appeals or intents to object, and ordered the employer to disclose its entire WSIB file regarding the grievor.

The union filed grievances on behalf of an employee who suffered electrical shocks at work, seeking $10,000 in damages for the employer's failure to maintain a safe workplace and a declaration of breach.

The employee had already received benefits under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act (WSIA).

The employer brought a preliminary motion to strike the claims.

The arbitrator allowed the motion, finding that the Board lacked jurisdiction to award monetary damages for injuries compensable under the WSIA's no-fault scheme.

The arbitrator also dismissed the request for a declaration as moot, since the employer had already resolved the electrical hazard and no further incidents had occurred.

The grievor, a Black woman, alleged that a White co-worker deliberately shoved her in a narrow hallway.

The employer appointed an internal investigator who concluded the contact was accidental and that the grievor had exaggerated her claim to extract a financial settlement.

The arbitrator found insufficient evidence to determine whether the contact was an assault or an accident.

However, the arbitrator found the employer's investigation was deeply flawed, unfair, and failed to meet the required standards under the Occupational Health and Safety Act and the collective agreement.

While the union argued the investigator's conclusions were tainted by implicit anti-Black bias, the arbitrator found insufficient evidence to prove unconscious bias on a balance of probabilities.

The arbitrator ordered the investigator's report removed from the employees' files and remitted the matter to the parties to determine monetary damages for the unfair investigation.

The complainant, an Operational Manager at a detention centre, grieved a three-day suspension imposed for damaging a computer monitor in a fit of anger.

The complainant argued the discipline was unwarranted because he was suffering from undiagnosed PTSD at the time, which mitigated his conduct, and that he was denied procedural fairness.

The Public Service Grievance Board dismissed the complaint, finding no denial of procedural fairness.

Applying arbitral jurisprudence, the Board held that while the complainant was later diagnosed with PTSD, there was insufficient medical evidence establishing a causal nexus between the diagnosis and the specific act of workplace misconduct to excuse the behaviour.