55 total
Consent order issued setting timelines for disclosure and particulars in grievance arbitration.
At a case management hearing, the parties agreed on timelines for the submission of particulars and production regarding the termination of the grievor's employment.
The arbitrator issued a consent order directing the employer to provide disclosure by December 2, 2024, the union to provide full written particulars by December 16, 2024, and the employer to advise of any preliminary motions by February 28, 2025.
Grievance dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as the regulation explicitly excludes complaints about dismissals without cause.
The complainant, a former public servant, filed a grievance regarding his dismissal without cause and preceding events, including a leave of absence and workplace investigation.
The employer raised a preliminary objection, arguing the Public Service Grievance Board lacked jurisdiction under the Public Service of Ontario Act, 2006 and O. Reg. 378/07 to hear complaints about dismissals without cause.
The Board agreed, finding that the regulation explicitly excludes dismissals without cause from its jurisdiction.
Furthermore, the Board held that even if the complaint concerned working conditions prior to dismissal, the complainant was no longer a public servant when he filed his Notice of Proposal, precluding him from grieving those matters.
The complaint was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Board amends prior decision regarding medical consent forms pursuant to parties' settlement of policy grievance.
The parties reached a settlement resolving a 2014 policy grievance and an associated application for judicial review.
As part of the settlement, the parties requested that the Grievance Settlement Board issue a further decision amending two paragraphs of its July 18, 2017 decision regarding the breadth of a medical consent form and the employer's entitlement to health information.
The Board ordered the requested amendments and deemed the grievance and judicial review application withdrawn.
Consent order issued requiring the union to provide further and better particulars of the grievance.
The parties consented to an order requiring the union to provide further and better particulars to the employer regarding the August 15, 2018 grievance.
The particulars must include the facts supporting the alleged breach of the collective agreement, including what was done, when, where, by whom, and with what motivation.
The particulars are to be treated as confidential and provided by February 1, 2021.
Adjournment granted on terms after grievor failed to attend arbitration hearing.
The Employer terminated the Grievor's employment for abandonment.
At the scheduled arbitration hearing, the Grievor failed to appear.
The Union requested an adjournment sine die, while the Employer sought dismissal of the grievance.
The Arbitrator declined to grant an indefinite adjournment or dismiss the grievance immediately, instead granting an adjournment on terms requiring the Grievor to provide medical documentation explaining his absence and the Union to provide particulars of its challenge by a specified date.
Grievances dismissed for failing to establish a prima facie case of discrimination and being untimely.
The employer brought preliminary motions to dismiss three grievances related to job competitions on the grounds that they failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination and were untimely.
The arbitrator found that the union's pleadings, which only alleged the grievor's membership in protected classes and his lack of success in the competitions, failed to establish a nexus between the two, and thus did not disclose a prima facie case of discrimination.
The arbitrator also found the grievances, filed between one and five and one-half years after the competitions, were untimely.
Applying the established factors, the arbitrator declined to exercise discretion to extend the time limits and dismissed the grievances.
Arbitrator directs Union to provide grievance particulars and Employer to advise of preliminary objections.
In a grievance arbitration under the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act, the Arbitrator issued procedural directions.
The Union and the grievor were directed to provide full and complete particulars of the grievances to the Employer by October 12, 2018.
The Employer was directed to advise the Union of any preliminary objections by November 9, 2018, ahead of the scheduled continuation of the hearing on November 30, 2018.
Union directed to provide particulars and medical documentation regarding grievor's asserted disability prior to hearing.
In a grievance concerning a request for disability accommodation, the Arbitrator issued an interim decision directing the Union to provide full written particulars of the grievor's asserted disability.
The Union was also directed to produce all relevant documentation, including medical records detailing any restrictions or limitations on the grievor's ability to return to work.
The Employer was directed to respond in writing setting out its position prior to the continuation of the hearing.
Arbitrator orders production of grievor's medical records to assess mental health damages claim.
In a grievance alleging workplace harassment, discrimination, and constructive dismissal resulting in mental health damages, the employer sought production of the grievor's medical records.
The union did not oppose the production but contested the temporal scope.
The arbitrator ordered the production of the clinical notes and records, extending the temporal scope to one year prior to the grievor's secondment to provide a baseline for assessing her mental health before, during, and after the alleged workplace changes.
LTIP benefits termination overturned where insurer's imposed rehabilitation plan was arbitrary and ignored medical advice.
The grievor's long-term income protection (LTIP) benefits were terminated by the insurer for alleged non-compliance with a mandatory rehabilitation program.
The union appealed the termination to the Grievance Settlement Board's Claims Review Subcommittee.
The arbitrator found that the insurer's recommended rehabilitation plan, which required a gradual return to work after only four sessions of cognitive behavioural therapy, was arbitrary and contradicted the independent medical examination's recommendations.
Because the rehabilitation plan was arbitrary, the grievor's failure to comply did not justify the termination of benefits.
The appeal was allowed.
Employer ordered to assign grievor to specific work locations to fulfill medical accommodation requirements.
The union filed a grievance regarding the medical accommodation of the grievor.
Through a med/arb process, the Vice-Chair ordered the employer to directly assign the grievor to work at 47 Sheppard Ave East until a new office at 786 Lawrence Ave West opens, at which point she will be assigned there.
This assignment was deemed to meet any existing medical accommodation requirements and fully resolved the grievance.
The assignment is to take effect within one week of the grievor providing medical clearance.
Grievance dismissed; employer's disclosure of settlement payments on sunshine list was required by law.
The union alleged that the employer breached the confidentiality provision of a settlement agreement by publishing the grievor's settlement payments on the public sector sunshine list.
The employer argued that the disclosure was required by the Public Sector Salary Disclosure Act, 1996, as the payments constituted salary under the Income Tax Act.
The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that the payments were income from employment and the employer was required by law to disclose them, which fell within an exception to the confidentiality provision.
Procedural order issued establishing schedule for Employee Screening Tool subcommittee meetings.
The Grievance Settlement Board issued a procedural order establishing a schedule for the Employee Screening Tool subcommittee process pursuant to a Memorandum of Agreement.
The order mandates monthly meetings commencing in September 2016 to discuss the tool's implementation for each ministry, starting with Community Safety and Correctional Services, Attorney General, and Natural Resources and Forestry.
The Vice-Chair remains seized with the implementation of the Agreement and the hearing of the grievances should the subcommittee discussions prove fruitless.
Grievance dismissed; employer did not breach collective agreement by treating partial sick days as separate occurrences under attendance program.
The union filed a grievance challenging the employer's application of the Attendance Support and Management Program (ASMP) to the grievor.
The grievor had missed partial days due to illness, which the employer treated as separate occurrences, accelerating her progression through the ASMP levels.
The union argued this was unreasonable and that the employer failed to exercise discretion.
The employer maintained that the ASMP thresholds were valid and previously upheld.
The arbitrator, proceeding under an expedited process without reasons, found no breach of the collective agreement and dismissed the grievance.
Pre-2007 medical records ordered disclosed to Employer's counsel only to determine relevance to grievance.
In a grievance arbitration where the Grievor alleged the Employer's actions caused her harm, a dispute arose over the disclosure of the Grievor's medical records from 2004 to 2007.
The Union consented to provide records from 2007 onwards but objected to earlier records.
The Grievance Settlement Board ordered that the disputed medical records be made available exclusively to the Employer's counsel to determine if they are useful and necessary to the substantive issues.
The Board reasoned that the Employer was entitled to review the records given the allegations of harm and indications of pre-existing issues, subject to strict confidentiality conditions.
Union ordered to obtain clarification from doctor regarding grievor's ability to participate in hearing.
The Employer raised an issue regarding the grievor's ability to participate in the hearing.
The Union provided a medical note strongly recommending the grievor not have face-to-face meetings with managers or staff.
The Vice-Chair found the note insufficient to determine if the grievor could testify or what accommodations were needed.
The Union was ordered to obtain clarification from the doctor regarding the grievor's ability to participate, the specific individuals she should avoid, and any necessary accommodations.
Generalized allegations of discrimination and harassment ordered to be particularized or face being stricken.
In a grievance arbitration, the Grievance Settlement Board ordered that all particulars concerning matters that had been withdrawn, settled, or subject to a prior decision be stricken.
The Board further ordered that all generalized particulars alleging discrimination and harassment must be particularized (who, what, where, and when) by a specified date, failing which they may be stricken.
Union ordered to produce grievor's medical records to employer subject to strict privacy conditions.
The Employer sought the release of the Grievor's Independent Medical Examination Report and Long Term Insurance Plan file in a dispute over the Grievor's medical condition.
The Grievance Settlement Board directed the Union to provide the documents to the Employer's counsel, subject to strict privacy conditions limiting their use and disclosure to specific individuals involved in the litigation.
Grievance dismissed for lack of jurisdiction due to untimely referral to arbitration.
The Union referred a grievance regarding vacation pay to arbitration after the mandatory time limits set out in the Collective Agreement had expired.
The Employer raised a preliminary objection that the Grievance Settlement Board lacked jurisdiction to hear the grievance due to the late referral.
The Vice-Chair agreed, noting that arbitral jurisprudence and section 48(16) of the Labour Relations Act establish that an arbitrator does not have jurisdiction to extend the time for an untimely referral to arbitration.
The grievance was dismissed.
Human rights application reactivated but referred to summary hearing on section 45.1 dismissal and prospect of success.
The applicant sought to reactivate his human rights application following a decision by the Grievance Settlement Board.
The respondent employer opposed the reactivation, arguing the application should be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code because the grievance process appropriately dealt with its substance.
The Tribunal granted the request to reactivate the application but ordered a summary hearing by teleconference to address whether the application should be dismissed under section 45.1 and whether the claims against the respondent union have no reasonable prospect of success.
