Caroline Cohen

The Union brought a motion to adjourn a scheduled hearing because one of the two grievors was unavailable due to a new work schedule.

The Employer opposed the adjournment, citing prejudice regarding its ability to manage the underlying issue in the upcoming fire season.

The Arbitrator dismissed the motion, finding that the grievor knowingly made himself unavailable, the factual situation was simple, the other grievor was available to testify, and proceeding would not entail a denial of natural justice.

The parties engaged in mediation and executed a Memorandum of Settlement resolving the union grievance regarding the Attendance Support and Management Program (ASMP).

The settlement stipulates that absences flowing from a disability as defined by the Human Rights Code must be precluded from the ASMP, and the employer shall accept any note from a legally qualified medical practitioner indicating the absence was related to a disability.

The arbitrator issued the settlement terms as a consent order of the Board.

The Union filed grievances alleging discrimination and harassment by the Employer, seeking compensation for lost time and medical expenses due to chronic mental stress.

The Employer raised a preliminary objection, arguing the arbitrator lacked jurisdiction to grant these remedies because the claims fall under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act (WSIA).

The arbitrator applied the Monk decision, finding that the alleged chronic mental stress arising from harassment would be a compensable disability under the WSIA, and therefore the claims for compensation for lost time and medical expenses must be struck.

The grievance of Marcia Williams was adjourned on consent of the parties.

The adjournment is pending the provision of medical confirmation from the grievor's physician that she is fit to proceed with a hearing or mediated settlement discussions.

The medical confirmation must be provided no later than 30 days prior to the continuation date.

In a job-posting grievance arbitration, the parties sought preliminary rulings on notice to incumbents and retroactive pay.

The Arbitrator ruled that successful applicants in the original competition should be given notice and party status, with certain exceptions.

On the issue of retroactive pay, the Arbitrator held that if a re-run of the job competition is ordered, any retroactivity for a successful grievor would commence from the starting date of the re-run competition, not the original competition.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal.

At the commencement of the hearing on the merits, after procedural matters and opening statements, the applicant requested to withdraw his application.

The respondent sought a withdrawal with prejudice, while the applicant sought it without prejudice.

The Tribunal granted permission for the applicant to withdraw the application without conditions, noting that if the applicant attempts to re-file, the respondent may raise objections at that time.

In a grievance arbitration concerning a job competition, several grievors failed to attend scheduled hearing dates and failed to provide timely particulars.

The arbitrator ordered the grievors to provide specific particulars regarding their interview scores and alleged irrelevant questions by a set deadline.

The arbitrator further ordered that failure to attend the next hearing date would result in dismissal of the grievances, and failure to provide particulars would preclude calling evidence on those matters.

The parties were engaged in a process to address remedial questions following an earlier arbitration award.

The Association requested the production of certain employer records to facilitate this process.

The Arbitrator directed the Employer to provide an accounting of all monies paid and credits used or accrued by the complainant for the period between August 14, 2010, and March 18, 2014.

The Association filed a grievance alleging the employer breached the collective agreement by failing to protect the complainant from personal harassment and reprisal, resulting in mental stress and illness.

The employer brought a preliminary motion arguing the Grievance Settlement Board lacked jurisdiction to award damages because the injury was compensable under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act (WSIA).

Although the WSIA at the time barred claims for chronic mental stress, the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal had previously found those provisions unconstitutional and declined to apply them.

The Arbitrator held that the injury would have been compensable under the WSIA in light of the Tribunal's decisions, and therefore the Board lacked jurisdiction to award the requested damages.

The union filed a policy grievance challenging the employer's Health Information Program Guide and consent forms, arguing they violated privacy rights under PHIPA and FIPPA by seeking overly broad, prospective, and multi-purpose consent for the release of employee medical information.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that while the employer's actual practices largely complied with legal requirements, the written policy and forms were drafted too broadly and could be interpreted in a manner that violated privacy rights.

The Board directed the employer to amend its documents to ensure employees are clearly informed of the specific medical professional being contacted, the exact information requested, and the specific purpose for the request, and to eliminate prospective consent language.

The Union filed a policy grievance alleging that the Employer's unilaterally implemented accommodation and return-to-work policies violated the collective agreement and the Human Rights Code by failing to mandate Union participation in all aspects of the accommodation process.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that the Union's right to participate is not absolute and does not extend to all accommodation meetings or the development of general policies.

Applying the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Renaud, the Board found that the Union is entitled to participate only when an employee specifically requests representation, when a proposed accommodation impacts collective agreement rights, or when the Union's cooperation is required to waive a discriminatory provision.

The Union filed grievances alleging the employer violated health and safety and management rights articles by refusing to implement an immediate-response, two-way radio system for single inspections.

At mediation/arbitration, the employer requested particulars and raised concerns about the temporal scope of the Union's evidence.

The Vice-Chair ordered the Union to provide full particulars and all relevant documents to the employer, and directed the employer to advise the Union of any preliminary issues arising from the particulars prior to the next hearing date.

The complainant challenged a 20-day disciplinary suspension.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the complaint because the complainant failed to give notice of his intention to complain within the mandatory 14-day period prescribed by section 8(4) of Regulation 378/07 under the Public Service of Ontario Act.

The Board held that compliance with the time limits is a strict precondition to its jurisdiction and it has no discretion to relieve against them.

The employer's motion was allowed and the complaint was dismissed.

The Employer brought a motion arguing that the union's grievance regarding a letter of reprimand was inarbitrable due to a 13-month delay in referring it to arbitration.

The Union argued the Employer waived its right to object and requested an extension of time limits under section 48(16) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Grievance Settlement Board found no waiver, as the Employer had raised the timeliness objection well before mediation.

Applying the relevant factors, the Board declined to extend the time limit, noting the grievance's low level of seriousness and the lack of a satisfactory explanation for the extreme delay.

The Employer's motion was granted and the grievance was deemed withdrawn.

The applicant union sought judicial review of a Grievance Settlement Board decision finding that the respondent Ministry did not breach its duty to accommodate an employee terminated for innocent absenteeism.

The employee suffered from a chronic back condition causing unpredictable and excessive absenteeism.

The union argued the duty to accommodate included allowing the employee not to work when unable.

The Divisional Court held the standard of review was reasonableness and upheld the Board's decision, stating the duty to accommodate is intended to allow employees to fulfill their duties, not to completely alter the essence of the employment contract by accepting excessive absenteeism.

The Complainant challenged her dismissal without cause, alleging bad faith, discrimination on the basis of disability, and reprisal for disclosure of wrongdoing under the Public Service of Ontario Act.

The Employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the complaint for failing to disclose a prima facie case.

The Complainant requested extensive document production to respond to the motion.

The Board ordered the Employer to produce documents relevant to whether a disclosure of wrongdoing occurred, as this was intertwined with the preliminary motion.

However, the Board denied production of documents relevant only to the merits of the discrimination claim at this stage.

The Association requested the production of a pre-screening score sheet for all 37 applicants in a job posting grievance.

The grievor was one of five candidates selected for an interview based on the pre-screening scores.

The Employer resisted production, arguing the document was not arguably relevant because the final selection decision was based on interview performance and written work, not the pre-screening scores.

The Grievance Settlement Board denied the Association's request, finding that since the grievor was granted an interview and the pre-screening score was not relied upon by the selection committee in its ultimate decision, the score sheet had no arguable relevance to the grievance.

During a grievance arbitration regarding the grievor's termination, the Employer sought to introduce Letters of Counsel and emails previously given to the grievor to show he was aware of performance expectations.

The Union objected, arguing the documents were disclosed late, were stale-dated, and contained highly prejudicial, unproven facts.

The Vice-Chair balanced the probative value against the prejudice to the grievor and ruled that redacted versions of the documents, which removed the specific factual background but retained the performance expectations, would be admitted into evidence for that limited purpose.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, family status, marital status, sex, and reprisal against his employer and his union.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed for delay and for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations against the union, finding they fell outside its jurisdiction or had no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal also dismissed the allegations against the employer prior to April 2014 as untimely, finding that a 16-month gap broke the series of incidents and that pursuing grievances did not constitute a good faith reason for delay.

The application was permitted to continue regarding the timely allegations of denied accommodation.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal in employment.

The respondent requested that the application be deferred because the applicant had filed grievances under her collective agreement raising the same facts and issues, which had been referred to the Grievance Settlement Board.

The Tribunal found substantial overlap between the application and the grievances and deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process, in accordance with its usual practice.