Benjamin R. Parry

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.

The grievor, a Financial Officer at the Family Responsibility Office, was terminated for cause after an IT forensic investigation revealed he had falsified pay stubs for a manager's mortgage brokerage business, conducted a personal accounting business during work hours using government resources, and disclosed confidential client information to a third party.

The grievor failed to attend the latter part of the arbitration hearings and provided no medical documentation to justify his absence.

The Grievance Settlement Board found the employer's evidence substantiated the misconduct.

The Board also dismissed the grievor's human rights allegations, finding no evidence of discriminatory treatment.

Given the serious nature of the misconduct and the grievor's failure to take ownership of his actions, the Board upheld the termination and dismissed the grievance.

The Union sought interim relief to compel the Employer to provide Crown counsel with information that an inspector's discharge was being challenged at arbitration, in the context of a McNeil disclosure letter.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that the relief sought had essentially been obtained because the inspector's views, including the fact that his discharge was proceeding to arbitration, had already been put before the Crown.

The grievor failed to attend the scheduled arbitration hearing and failed to comply with prior Board orders requiring the production of specific medical evidence to justify his previous absences.

The Union requested another adjournment, providing only a clinic prescription note and a referral request, which the Board found inadequate.

The Board denied the adjournment request, noted the Union's case as closed since it had no other witnesses, and directed the matter to proceed to argument on the merits.

The Union sought an extension to provide medical documentation supporting the grievor's absence, following an earlier order requiring compelling medical evidence.

The grievor failed to attend the reconvened hearing and the medical note provided was deemed inadequate.

The Employer sought dismissal of the grievance or an order to proceed in the grievor's absence.

The Grievance Settlement Board declined to dismiss the grievance or proceed in absentia, citing potential denial of natural justice if the grievor was legitimately unfit.

The Board adjourned the remaining hearing dates but ordered the Union to produce satisfactory medical evidence prior to the next scheduled date, noting that the delay would be considered in any ultimate assessment of damages.

The unions sought specific orders requiring the employer to immediately commence harmonization of security checks in legacy ministries in accordance with the March 2005 Policy and Guidelines.

The employer had recently provided a new draft Employment Screening Checks Policy and argued that the requested orders would be premature and could conflict with Cabinet's statutory discretion.

The Grievance Settlement Board declined to issue the requested orders, finding that the parties were best served by deferring consideration to allow them to discuss the new draft policy and attempt to reach a mutually satisfactory resolution.

The Board remained seized of the matter.

The Union brought a motion to adjourn the grievance arbitration proceedings due to the grievor's medical condition, supported by an email from the grievor's spouse and a brief doctor's note.

The Employer opposed the motion, arguing the medical evidence was inadequate.

The Grievance Settlement Board denied the adjournment motion, finding the doctor's note insufficient as it did not detail the grievor's limitations or restrictions.

The Union was directed to produce compelling medical evidence by a specified date, failing which the grievor's position would face dire consequences.

The Union filed a grievance alleging the Employer violated Appendix COR-7 of the collective agreement by excluding time spent on approved leaves of absence and acting assignments from the calculation of 'hours worked' for the Absenteeism Target Incentive.

The Union argued the lump sum payment was effectively a retroactive wage increase and that excluding leave time penalized employees and violated the Employment Standards Act and Human Rights Code.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding the clear language of the agreement provided a lump sum payment based on actual 'hours worked' to reward attendance, not a wage increase, and that prorating a work-driven benefit based on actual attendance did not constitute a reprisal or discrimination.

Two employees were discharged for multiple reasons, including their alleged involvement in moderating a highly inappropriate and malicious workplace blog.

One employee was also discharged for using government resources to conduct a personal business.

The other employee was discharged for unauthorized access to a government database, running a personal business on work time, and using his government email to receive and distribute highly offensive pornographic images.

The arbitrator found that the employer had established just cause for both discharges.

The arbitrator emphasized the employees' lack of honesty during the investigation and the hearing, concluding that the employment relationship and trust had been irreparably broken.

The grievances were dismissed.

The union and the grievor alleged that the employer breached a Memorandum of Settlement by delaying the issuance of a Record of Employment (ROE) to the Federal Government following a lump sum payment.

The union claimed this delay negatively impacted the grievor's ability to collect Employment Insurance benefits.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the claim, finding that the settlement document contained no reference to an ROE, and therefore the delay could not constitute a breach of the settlement.

The Union brought a motion seeking disclosure of documents regarding IT policy violations by six named individuals, arguing the information was relevant because the grievor was terminated in part for misusing the Employer's IT resources.

The Employer objected, arguing the Union's particulars were insufficient.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the motion, finding the Union's request overly broad and lacking sufficient particulars regarding the 'what', 'when', 'where', and 'how' of the alleged conduct.

The Union was granted leave to provide better particulars.

The Employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss union grievances regarding the calculation of absenteeism target incentives, arguing that a January 2010 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) precluded such challenges.

The MOA prevented the Union from challenging the Employer's 2009 data and attendance targets.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the motion, finding that while the MOA settled the attendance target percentage, it did not contain clear language waiving the Union's right to grieve the Employer's calculation of individual 'hours worked' for the purpose of applying the incentive payment.

The Union filed grievances alleging that the Employer violated the collective agreement by failing to pay absenteeism target incentives to fixed-term correctional officers.

The Employer brought a motion to dismiss the grievances on the basis that they did not disclose a prima facie case.

The Grievance Settlement Board granted the motion, finding that the clear language of the collective agreement restricted the incentive payments to 'regular' employees and explicitly excluded fixed-term employees.

The grievances were dismissed.

The employer brought a motion requesting the Grievance Settlement Board assume jurisdiction over all aspects of the grievor's unjust dismissal complaint, including allegations of discrimination under the Human Rights Code.

The grievor had filed a concurrent application with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, which indicated it might defer to the Board.

The Board granted the motion, finding it had concurrent jurisdiction to interpret and apply human rights legislation, and directed the grievance to proceed on the merits.

The parties reached a settlement regarding grievances alleging the employer violated the collective agreement provisions dealing with video display terminals (VDTs).

The settlement provides for relief to correctional officers working in specific modules during peak periods and a lump sum payment of $25,000.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued a consent order incorporating the Minutes of Settlement and remained seized of any issues regarding its implementation.

The union filed a group grievance alleging that the employer violated the collective agreement by failing to pay acting pay to Investigators (FO5) who were assigned files with a tax value exceeding $25,000, which the union claimed were duties of the higher-classified Senior Investigator (AFA20) position.

At the conclusion of the union's case, the employer brought a non-suit motion.

The Grievance Settlement Board applied the 'sufficient evidence' standard and upheld the non-suit motion, finding that the union failed to establish a prima facie case.

The Board concluded that the work performed was not outside the scope of the FO5 position and, even if it were, the grievors did not perform all the core or significant duties of the AFA20 position, such as leadership, training, and mentoring.

The grievor sought to participate as an independent party, separate from the union, in a reconvened grievance arbitration hearing concerning the implementation of a 1983 reinstatement award.

The union and the employer opposed the request.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that under the applicable collective bargaining legislation, the union has exclusive carriage rights over grievances.

The Board found no exceptional circumstances to justify granting the grievor independent standing, noting that disputes over the union's duty of fair representation fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The grievor's request for party standing was denied.

The employer brought two preliminary motions challenging the Grievance Settlement Board's jurisdiction to hear a grievance regarding the denial of a compressed work week (CWW).

The union alleged the employer unreasonably exercised its management rights by denying the grievor a CWW while granting it to others, and alternatively claimed promissory estoppel based on a pre-employment promise.

The Board upheld the employer's first motion, finding it lacked jurisdiction to review the exercise of management rights absent an alleged violation of a substantive collective agreement right.

However, the Board denied the second motion, holding it had jurisdiction to apply the equitable doctrine of promissory estoppel to a pre-employment promise that was confirmed post-employment, as doing so would not undermine the collective agreement or the union's status.

At the opening of a grievance arbitration hearing, two preliminary issues were raised.

First, the grievor requested full party standing separate from the union, arguing the union was in an adversarial position due to her human rights complaint against it.

The Board denied this request, affirming the union's exclusive carriage rights over grievances.

Second, the union requested an adjournment of the arbitration pending the outcome of the grievor's human rights complaint against the union, arguing the factual overlap placed it in a conflict.

The Board denied the adjournment, finding the grievances against the employer could be adjudicated without a factual determination of the human rights complaint against the union.

The union filed multiple grievances alleging the grievor was improperly denied interviews for Tax Auditor positions and was discriminated against based on age.

The Grievance Settlement Board reviewed the screening criteria and scoring for the competitions, finding that the employer reasonably assessed the grievor's lack of relevant auditing experience compared to other candidates.

The Board found no evidence of age discrimination and dismissed the grievances related to the heard competitions.