113 total
Grievances alleging workplace bullying and harassment dismissed for failing to make out a prima facie case.
The Union filed five grievances alleging breaches of the collective agreement, specifically Article 3, claiming a course of conduct amounting to bullying or harassment by management.
The Employer brought a motion arguing the grievances failed to make out a prima facie case.
The Vice-Chair reviewed the particulars of the five incidents, which involved two separate managers over seven or eight months, and found that none of the incidents individually or collectively established a plausible basis for bullying or harassment.
The grievances were dismissed for failing to make out a prima facie case.
Employer's motion to dismiss grievances for failing to disclose a prima facie case denied.
The employer brought a motion to dismiss several individual grievances filed by probation and parole officers in the Guns and Gangs Unit, arguing the union's particulars did not disclose a prima facie case.
The union alleged that the employer's failure to promptly fill a vacancy and backfill positions led to increased workloads, causing significant stress and safety concerns in violation of the collective agreement and the Occupational Health and Safety Act.
The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the employer's motion, finding that the union's particulars, taken as true, provided sufficient detail to establish a prima facie breach of the health and safety and management rights provisions.
Incumbent employee granted intervenor status in human rights application challenging his hiring.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of race, ancestry, and place of origin after being denied a Chemical Engineer position.
The successful candidate for the position filed a Request to Intervene, arguing the Tribunal's decision could directly affect his employment status.
The Tribunal granted the request, finding it appropriate to grant intervenor status given the potential effect of the proceeding on the incumbent employee.
Litigation privilege waived when document was reproduced and found in possession of independent fact witness.
During an arbitration hearing regarding a grievance for discharge without just cause, the Union requested disclosure of a document seen in the possession of an employer witness.
The Employer argued the document was protected by litigation privilege.
The Grievance Settlement Board found that while the document was originally protected by litigation privilege, the privilege was waived when the document was deliberately reproduced and found in the possession of an independent fact witness.
The Employer was ordered to disclose the document to the Union.
Human rights applications consolidated and deferred pending conclusion of ongoing Grievance Settlement Board arbitration.
The applicant filed a third human rights application and sought to have it consolidated with her two previous applications.
The respondent consented to the consolidation.
The Tribunal consolidated the applications and considered whether to defer them pending the conclusion of an ongoing arbitration before the Grievance Settlement Board (GSB).
Despite the applicant's objections regarding the speed of the GSB proceedings, the Tribunal deferred the consolidated applications, noting that the grievance process was active and a mechanism was in place to address post-July 2013 issues.
Employer ordered to produce inmate medical records subject to strict confidentiality conditions.
The Grievance Settlement Board directed the Employer to produce medical documentation and health care records regarding specific inmates in relation to incidents on August 21 and 26, 2014.
The production was ordered subject to strict confidentiality conditions, including restrictions on dissemination, copying, and use outside of the arbitration process.
Grievance alleging supervisor harassment dismissed as actions were found to be performance management.
The grievor, an Inspector at the Ministry of Labour, filed a grievance alleging harassment by her supervisor, citing two instances where she felt criticized and belittled in front of colleagues.
The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that even if the allegations were true, the employer was dealing with performance issues and did not intend to harass the grievor, thus no violation of the Collective Agreement was established.
Grievor ordered to produce relevant medical records subject to strict confidentiality conditions.
The Employer sought production of arguably relevant, non-privileged documents from the Union and the grievor, including clinical notes and records related to the grievor's accommodation request and harassment allegations.
The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the production of these documents, subject to strict confidentiality conditions limiting their use and disclosure to specific Employer representatives and medical experts solely for the purposes of the proceeding.
Grievances dismissed; employer had just cause to reprimand for time theft and suspend for dishonesty.
The grievor, a Real Estate Officer, challenged a letter of reprimand and a 10-day suspension.
The reprimand was issued after a member of the public observed the grievor sleeping in a government vehicle for an extended period while claiming overtime.
The suspension was issued for dishonesty and insubordination during an investigation into a potential conflict of interest involving the grievor's sole proprietorship.
The Grievance Settlement Board found that the employer had just cause for both disciplinary actions, as the grievor had claimed hours not worked, intentionally misled the employer during the conflict of interest investigation, and failed to comply with reasonable requests for information.
The grievances were dismissed.
Union ordered to provide full particulars and medical documentation regarding health and safety grievances.
The union filed 12 grievances alleging health and safety violations under the collective agreement at probation and parole offices in Toronto.
Following unsuccessful mediation, the Grievance Settlement Board ordered the union to provide full particulars to the employer by August 17, 2015, and to produce the relied-upon medical documentation by November 1, 2015.
Grievances dismissed; employer's designation of a highway as a separate district for overtime was a valid exercise of management rights.
The union filed grievances on behalf of Transportation Enforcement Officers alleging that the employer violated the collective agreement by designating the 407 Electronic Toll Road as a separate district for overtime distribution.
The union argued that this designation unfairly deprived officers in adjacent districts of overtime opportunities, relying on the test for discretionary management decisions.
The employer maintained that the designation was a valid exercise of management rights made for legitimate billing and operational reasons.
The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievances, finding that the employer's decision was made in good faith for legitimate business reasons and did not violate the collective agreement's requirement for fair and equitable overtime distribution within a local workplace.
Human rights applications consolidated and deferred pending conclusion of concurrent grievance arbitration process.
The applicant filed a second human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal, requesting it be consolidated with her first application.
The respondent did not oppose consolidation.
The Tribunal consolidated the applications but deferred the second application pending the conclusion of an ongoing grievance arbitration process before the Grievance Settlement Board, which was dealing with the same human rights issues.
Arbitration adjourned pending grievor's enrollment and completion of a residential substance abuse treatment program.
In a discharge grievance for innocent absenteeism, the Grievance Settlement Board issued interim directions requiring the grievor to attend Narcotics Anonymous and enroll in a minimum three-week residential treatment program.
The arbitration was adjourned pending the completion of the residential treatment, with the condition that failure to comply would result in the arbitration proceeding based on the evidence to date.
Human rights application deferred pending conclusion of concurrent union grievance arbitration.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability.
The respondent requested that the application be deferred because the applicant's union had filed grievances based on the same facts and human rights issues, which were proceeding to arbitration.
The Tribunal found substantial overlap between the application and the ongoing grievance process.
The Tribunal deferred the application pending the conclusion of the arbitration process, noting that grievance arbitrators have the jurisdiction to apply human rights statutes.
Production of grievor's medical records ordered subject to strict confidentiality conditions.
The Employer sought production of the grievor's complete medical records in a grievance arbitration.
The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the production of the records from January 1, 2004, to the present, subject to strict confidentiality conditions restricting their use and dissemination to the Employer's counsel and advisors for hearing preparation purposes only.
Interim orders issued restricting the sharing and copying of confidential medical documents in grievance arbitration.
In a grievance arbitration, the Grievance Settlement Board issued interim orders regarding the production of documents.
The Board directed that non-confidential documents may be shared on a need-to-know basis for case preparation, while confidential documents, including the grievor's medical and WSIB files, are subject to strict limitations.
Confidential documents may only be shared with specific named individuals for obtaining instructions or preparing witness testimony, and copies may not be made or retained after the proceedings.
Grievor ordered to sign medical consent for IME to assess fitness to return to work.
The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the grievor to sign a consent authorizing the release of his medical records to determine if an independent medical examination (IME) is appropriate.
The Board noted that failure to sign the consent would constitute a failure to cooperate under the parties' Memorandum of Settlement.
The Board reiterated concerns about whether the grievor could safely return to work, necessitating potential physical and psychological evaluations.
Grievance dismissed; Board lacks jurisdiction to reclassify position or award pay increases outside policy terms.
The complainant, a Field Intelligence Officer, filed a grievance alleging the employer violated its Pay on Assignment Policy by failing to provide a promotional increase when he was appointed to a restructured position with increased responsibilities.
The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the complaint for want of a prima facie case.
The Public Service Grievance Board granted the motion, finding that the complainant remained in the same classification, meaning the assignment did not meet the policy's definition of a promotion.
Furthermore, the Board lacked jurisdiction to reclassify the position or award higher pay based on comparisons to bargaining unit employees.
Arbitrator finds no safety risk in returning grievor to work based on psychiatric assessment.
The parties disputed whether the grievor posed a safety risk if returned to work, following an independent medical examination by a forensic psychiatrist.
The arbitrator reviewed the medical report, which concluded that the grievor did not present an acute risk in the short term and was unlikely to overtly threaten others or act out physically in the long term, despite potential interpersonal struggles and parasuicidal gestures.
The arbitrator found that the most reasonable interpretation of the report was that there is no safety risk if the grievor is returned to work.
Employer's preliminary motion to dismiss accommodation grievances as moot denied despite retroactive total disability benefits.
The union filed grievances alleging the employer failed to accommodate the grievor and exacerbated her medical condition during a modified return-to-work program.
The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the grievances as moot, arguing that the grievor was retroactively approved for Long Term Income Protection (LTIP) total disability benefits for the relevant period, meaning she could not have been accommodated.
The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the employer's motion, finding that the core of the grievances—whether the employer's actions caused injury and engaged its collective agreement obligations—remained unresolved and required adjudication on the merits.
