73 total
Grievances granted; employer ordered to pay shift premiums for all regularly scheduled hours worked after 5:00 p.m.
The union filed grievances on behalf of Customer Care Specialists claiming the employer violated the collective agreement by denying shift premiums for hours worked between 5:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.
The employer had implemented a new policy requiring 50% of an employee's scheduled shifts in a month to end after 5:00 p.m. to be eligible for the premium.
The arbitrator found the employer's new threshold inconsistent with the collective agreement, which clearly provided shift premiums for all hours worked between 5:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.
The grievances were granted, and the employer was ordered to pay the grievors the premium pay with interest.
Employer's jurisdictional objection and union's motion to alter the order of proceeding both dismissed.
The Association filed two disputes challenging the employer's decision to reduce the performance standard for completing investigations from 110 days to 90 days, and a blanket prohibition on teleworking more than one day a week.
The employer raised a preliminary objection to the Board's jurisdiction to hear the first dispute, arguing it was a free-standing challenge to management rights.
The Association brought a motion requesting the employer proceed first with its evidence.
The Arbitrator dismissed the employer's jurisdictional objection, finding the dispute raised issues tied to merit pay under the collective agreement.
The Arbitrator also dismissed the Association's motion, ruling that the union must proceed first to establish a prima facie case in accordance with the Board's general practice.
Employer is not required to disclose specific allegations immediately upon suspending an employee pending investigation.
The complainant was suspended with pay pending an investigation into allegations of workplace sexual harassment.
He filed a grievance arguing that under the Workplace Discrimination and Harassment Prevention (WDHP) Policy, the employer was required to disclose the specific allegations and provide all relevant documents at the exact time of his suspension.
The Grievance Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the WDHP Policy only requires sufficient information to allow effective participation in the process, which the complainant received prior to his interview with the investigator.
The Board held there is no freestanding right to immediate and full disclosure at the time of suspension under either the policy or the Public Service of Ontario Act.
Employer's motion to bifurcate hearing on post-retirement benefits grievance dismissed due to intertwined issues and fairness concerns.
The employer brought a motion to bifurcate the hearing of a union grievance concerning unilateral changes to post-retirement benefits.
The employer sought to have the Board first hear and determine its motion that the union had not made out a prima facie case for its contractual claims, based solely on the language of the collective agreement without extrinsic evidence.
The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the motion for bifurcation, finding that the union was entitled to adduce extrinsic evidence to support its position that post-retirement benefits were implicitly incorporated into the collective agreement.
The Board concluded that bifurcation would not result in efficiency, as the issues were intertwined and a decision on the preliminary motion would not dispose of the entire grievance, and would be unfair to the union.
Ten-day suspension for inappropriate tweet removed; harassment and reprisal grievance dismissed.
The grievor, a Correctional Officer, filed two grievances: one alleging harassment, discrimination, and reprisal for a previous human rights complaint, and another challenging a ten-day suspension for re-tweeting an inappropriate image on his personal Twitter account.
The Grievance Settlement Board upheld the suspension grievance, ordering the ten-day suspension removed from the grievor's record and that he be made whole, noting the lack of evidence that the tweet harmed the Employer's reputation.
The harassment and reprisal grievance was dismissed, as the Board found the Employer's scrutiny of the grievor's public social media account did not constitute harassment or a reprisal.
Grievors directed to submit Conflict of Interest determination requests without prejudice pending further arbitration.
The Union and two individual grievors filed grievances relating to the transcription of police interviews, which had been assigned to a private transcription service.
In an interim decision to move the matters forward, the Vice-Chair directed the grievors to complete and submit Conflict of Interest determination requests regarding the work in question.
The direction was made without prejudice to the parties' positions on any issue, including whether a conflict of interest existed or its relevance.
The matter was adjourned pending the determination.
Adjournment of grievance hearing granted due to grievor's medical unfitness to travel.
The Union requested an adjournment of a scheduled grievance hearing because the grievor, who resides in Manitoba, lacked the funds to travel to Toronto and had recently suffered injuries from a fall making her medically unfit to travel.
The Employer opposed the adjournment.
The Vice-Chair granted the adjournment, finding that the medical reason justified the request, without needing to decide if the financial reason alone would have been sufficient.
Human rights application deferred pending completion of concurrent union grievance proceeding.
The applicant filed a human rights application while concurrently pursuing a union grievance based on the same facts and human rights issues.
The respondent supported deferring the application, while the applicant opposed it.
The Tribunal, noting its normal approach to defer to concurrent legal proceedings capable of addressing human rights issues, ordered the application deferred pending the completion of the grievance process.
Human rights application dismissed as job transfer issue was previously decided at arbitration and mentorship claim lacked evidence.
The applicant alleged age discrimination regarding a job transfer and the denial of a mentorship opportunity.
The respondent requested dismissal under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the transfer issue was already decided by the Grievance Settlement Board (GSB).
The Tribunal found the GSB had appropriately dealt with the transfer allegation and dismissed that part of the application.
The Tribunal also dismissed the mentorship allegation, finding it had no reasonable prospect of success as there was no evidence linking the denial to the applicant's age.
Grievor's resignation found voluntary despite workplace stress and pending disciplinary action for inmate suicide.
The grievor, a registered nurse at a correctional facility, filed grievances alleging harassment, bullying, and discrimination by management, and claimed her resignation was forced under duress.
The employer argued she voluntarily resigned after being implicated in an inmate's suicide and facing potential termination and a report to the College of Nurses of Ontario.
The Grievance Settlement Board determined that the grievor had the opportunity to consider her options with union representation and exercised independent judgment.
The Board concluded the resignation was voluntary and denied the union's request for reinstatement.
Grievances dismissed for abuse of process after grievor repeatedly failed to attend scheduled hearings.
The grievor filed two job competition grievances but failed to attend two scheduled hearing dates without providing medical substantiation or adequate notice.
The Employer moved to dismiss the grievances for abuse of process, while the Union requested an adjournment.
The Grievance Settlement Board found that the grievor's conduct demonstrated a complete lack of respect for the Board's process and prejudiced the Employer.
The motion to dismiss was granted.
Grievance for travel and parking expenses dismissed in a bottom-line decision without reasons.
The union filed a grievance claiming the employer violated the collective agreement and travel policy by failing to compensate the grievor for parking and mileage expenses incurred on two dates.
The parties agreed to a bottom-line decision without reasons.
The arbitrator dismissed the grievance.
Union directed to produce arguably relevant documents and medical reports on consent.
During a teleconference call regarding a grievance arbitration, the Grievance Settlement Board issued a consent order directing the Union to produce all arguably relevant documents, including medical reports, to the Employer by a specified date.
Hearing adjourned due to grievor's non-attendance, with warning of potential dismissal for future non-attendance.
The grievor failed to attend the scheduled grievance arbitration hearing, citing stress.
The hearing was adjourned to a new date.
The Board warned the grievor that if he fails to attend the rescheduled hearing, the Employer's motion to dismiss the grievances will be considered.
Procedural order issued setting a schedule for the parties to resolve outstanding remedy calculations.
Following a previous decision, the parties were unable to resolve the issue of remedy regarding the monetary amount payable to the grievor.
The Vice-Chair issued a procedural order setting a strict schedule for the exchange of spreadsheets, responses, and payment, with a provision for a teleconference if agreement could not be reached.
Consent order issued detailing confidentiality conditions for disclosure of competition materials to union counsel.
The union filed a grievance alleging the employer improperly denied the grievor the opportunity to move to the interview stage of a competition.
The parties agreed to the disclosure of POSI questions and scoring materials subject to certain conditions.
The Vice-Chair issued a consent order detailing the conditions for disclosure, including prohibitions on copying, returning materials after arbitration, and maintaining confidentiality.
Grievance alleging breach of settlement agreement dismissed as employer complied with its terms.
The union alleged that the employer breached a Memorandum of Settlement (MOS) regarding the grievor's panel assignment and sick leave credits.
The MOS provided that on the next occasion to change panels, the grievor would have the option to have one of her newly appointed judges reassigned.
The employer complied with this in 2014.
In 2015, the employer reassigned the grievor's panel again due to operational reasons.
The Vice-Chair found that the MOS only applied to the next occasion of reassignment, which occurred in 2014, and placed no constraints on future reassignments.
The Vice-Chair also found no evidence that the employer failed to restore the sick leave credits.
The grievance was dismissed.
Interim direction issued to close workplace blinds pending Ministry of Labour clarification on light levels.
The union filed a group grievance raising health and safety concerns regarding light levels in the workplace.
During a mediation-arbitration, the Grievance Settlement Board issued an interim direction ordering the parties to contact the Ministry of Labour for clarification of a previous order regarding light levels.
In the interim, the Board directed that the workplace blinds be closed between 7:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m.
Employer breached collective agreement when manager suggested senior employees come with 'baggage' during hiring discussion.
The union filed a grievance alleging that an Area Manager made a comment during a staff meeting suggesting that senior employees come with 'baggage and issues' when discussing how a vacant position would be filled.
The arbitrator found that the comment could be interpreted to mean the employer would not consider older workers, amounting to a breach of the Human Rights Code.
A declaration was issued that the employer breached the non-discrimination clause of the collective agreement.
Employer breached harassment policy by delaying investigation outcome; $3,500 damages awarded to correctional officer.
The grievor, a Black correctional officer, alleged multiple incidents of racial discrimination and harassment at the Toronto Jail and Toronto South Detention Centre.
She claimed the employer failed to investigate her complaints or respond appropriately, perpetuating a poisoned work environment.
The Grievance Settlement Board found that the employer breached the Workplace Discrimination and Harassment Policy (WDHP) by failing to advise the grievor of the outcome of an investigation into a co-worker's conduct for 15 months, awarding $3,500 in general damages.
The Board also found the employer breached a safe departure Protocol by unilaterally requiring her to return to work without an accommodation meeting, and violated the collective agreement by failing to investigate a separate incident.
The remaining allegations of discrimination and harassment were dismissed.
