Andrew Lynes

The employer brought a motion to dismiss a grievance regarding a five-day suspension as untimely.

The grievance was referred to arbitration 18 months after the deadline.

The union requested an extension of time limits under the collective agreement and s. 48(16) of the Ontario Labour Relations Act.

The arbitrator declined to exercise discretion to extend the time limits, finding the 18-month delay to be extreme and the reasons for the delay to be weak, as the grievor was familiar with the grievance process and had no valid reason for the delay after initial settlement discussions ended.

The grievance was dismissed.

The applicant failed to contact court staff to arrange a case management teleconference by the court-ordered deadline.

As a result, the application was dismissed as abandoned, without costs.

The self-represented applicant sought to have her application heard on an urgent basis but refused to attend a mandatory case management teleconference, insisting on a panel of three judges.

Due to her failure to attend the scheduled teleconference, the court stayed the application pending further order, with a warning that it may be dismissed if she does not arrange a fresh teleconference by a specified date.

In a preliminary decision regarding six grievances alleging health and safety violations, the Employer challenged four of the Union's remaining particulars as expanding the scope of the grievances.

The Arbitrator applied a balancing approach, striking particulars that went beyond what was reasonably contemplated by the grievance forms (such as demanding physical searches of clients when the grievance only sought clarity on prohibited items, and raising new hire training issues in a grievance about policies for violent offenders).

However, the Arbitrator allowed particulars relating to the assessment of collateral contacts and the training of managers, finding them sufficiently encompassed by the broad terms of their respective grievances.

The Employer brought a motion to enforce a Memorandum of Settlement reached during mediation.

The grievor refused to sign the document, arguing she did not agree to withdraw her human rights application.

The arbitrator found that the union representative had apparent authority to negotiate on behalf of both the union and the grievor, and that an oral agreement had been reached before the grievor refused to sign.

The motion was granted, and the settlement was found to be binding on all parties.

In an ongoing arbitration proceeding held virtually due to COVID-19, the Union requested permission to share arguably relevant documents with the Grievor to prepare its case.

The Employer raised confidentiality concerns.

The Arbitrator issued an interim order permitting the Union to share the documents with the Grievor for the purpose of preparing for cross-examination, subject to strict conditions regarding copying, use, return or destruction, and ongoing confidentiality.

The Arbitrator warned that a breach of the order could result in the dismissal of the grievances.

The Association requested the production of all documentation in a Workplace Discrimination and Harassment Prevention (WDHP) file regarding an investigation into the Complainant.

The Association alleged the investigation was initiated as a reprisal for the Complainant enforcing his collective agreement rights.

The Employer resisted production, arguing it was premature and would prejudice the discipline process.

The Arbitrator ordered the production of the documents, finding them arguably relevant to the Association's reprisal allegations.

The parties participated in a conference call regarding the disclosure of documents and the provision of particulars in a grievance arbitration.

The Arbitrator issued a consent order requiring the Employer to disclose the grievor's employment file, investigation files, and related documentation by May 15, 2020.

The Union was ordered to provide particulars relating to the grievor's allegations of sexual harassment by June 15, 2020.

The Union filed a grievance alleging harassment and a poisoned work environment.

The Employer brought a motion to dismiss the grievance, arguing that allegations concerning a former manager were untimely and irrelevant, and that the remaining allegations concerning the current manager did not establish a prima facie case.

The Arbitrator found that the earlier incidents were not relevant to the later incident due to a significant gap in time and difference in nature.

The Arbitrator declined to extend the time limits for the earlier incidents, noting the significant delay and lack of a reasonable explanation.

Finally, the Arbitrator concluded that the allegations against the current manager, even if true, did not amount to harassment.

The grievance was dismissed.

The parties agreed to a Consent Order governing the disclosure and use of medical documentation in the proceeding.

The Arbitrator issued the order, which included conditions restricting access to the documents, requiring their secure destruction at the close of the proceeding, and reserving the right to challenge the medical evidence.

The Arbitrator also noted that the parties would discuss how medical evidence would be described in the final award to protect privacy.

The Union brought a motion seeking an order that the Employer produce contact information for an ODSP client so the Union could potentially call her as a witness in a grievance alleging harassment and failure to accommodate.

Following the motion hearing, the Arbitrator invited further submissions on newly raised case law.

The Union requested an immediate decision, arguing it needed the information before the grievor concluded her testimony.

The Arbitrator declined to issue an immediate order, finding no unfairness in allowing the grievor's testimony to continue without the Union having spoken to the client, whereas denying the Employer the right to comment on the new case law would be unfair.

The Arbitrator directed that the Employer could make further submissions at the next hearing date.

The hearing of the complaint was adjourned on consent of the parties.

The Board cancelled the previously scheduled December hearing date and issued directions for the parties to work towards completing an Agreed Statement of Fact.

A timeline was established for drafting and responding to the Agreed Statement of Fact, with a teleconference scheduled to determine its status and any other procedural matters.

The Association (AMAPCEO) filed grievances alleging that a co-worker (B) deliberately assaulted the grievor in the workplace and that the subsequent investigation was tainted by racial bias.

AMAPCEO sought an order preventing the grievor and B from working together.

B and her union (OPSEU) brought a motion to intervene in the arbitration to protect B's reputation and collective agreement rights.

The arbitrator granted the motion to intervene on a limited basis, finding a reasonable potential for conflict between the interests of B and the employer regarding the factual findings of the alleged assault and the potential remedy.

The union brought motions to consolidate a benefits grievance with existing discipline and discharge grievances, and to determine the order of proceedings.

The union sought to have the benefits grievance heard first due to the grievor's pressing need for dental care, and to have the discharge grievance heard before the discipline grievances.

The arbitrator declined to consolidate the grievances as they did not share common questions of fact or law, but ordered them to be heard together.

The arbitrator ruled that the benefits grievance would be heard after the discipline and discharge grievances, and that the employer could proceed with the discipline grievances before the discharge grievance to avoid prejudice to its case.

In a grievance concerning a job competition, the Union sought production of the personnel files of the challenged incumbents.

The Arbitrator ordered the Employer to produce the files without redaction of personal information, subject to the condition that the documents remain in the possession of Union counsel.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued procedural directions ahead of a scheduled hearing.

The Employer was directed to provide the Union with production of all documents arguably relevant to a grievance involving a job posting for a Client Accommodation Support Services Advisor position.

The Union was directed to provide the Employer with particulars regarding the same grievance.

The union filed grievances alleging the employer breached its duty to accommodate and the collective agreement regarding a correctional officer who suffered a compensable workplace injury after being assaulted by an inmate.

The grievor sought damages for injury to dignity after the employer required medical clearance, restricted his duties to avoid inmate contact, and bypassed him for overtime shifts.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievances, finding the employer's requirement for medical clearance and its interpretation of the medical restrictions were reasonable.

The arbitrator concluded the employer provided reasonable accommodation and did not breach the collective agreement in its overtime scheduling or by recording the grievor as 'not qualified' in its scheduling system.

The complainant filed a grievance alleging the employer failed to provide a 4% merit increase.

The matter was scheduled for a mediation session, but neither the complainant nor her representative attended.

The employer's counsel was present.

The Vice-Chair noted that the Board's rules permit disposing of a complaint when a party fails to attend.

However, because it was unclear if the complainant was aware of the scheduled mediation, the Board declined to dismiss the complaint immediately.

Instead, the Board directed the complainant to provide a written explanation for her non-attendance and to confirm whether she wished to proceed with her complaint.

The complainant and her representative failed to attend a scheduled mediation session before the Public Service Grievance Board.

The Board noted its authority under Rule 15 to dismiss the complaint for non-attendance but declined to do so immediately, as it was unclear whether the complainant was aware of the scheduled date.

The Board directed the complainant to provide a written explanation for her non-attendance and to confirm whether she wished to proceed with her complaint, failing which the complaint could be dismissed.

The parties agreed to case management directions in a grievance arbitration.

The Arbitrator ordered the consolidation of two grievance files, set deadlines for the Employer to respond to the Association's production requests, scheduled hearing dates, and remained seized of the matter.