73 total
Grievance dismissed on preliminary motion for failing to disclose a prima facie case of discrimination or bad faith.
The union filed a grievance alleging that the grievor was arbitrarily transferred to a new position and that his duties were changed, claiming age discrimination and bad faith exercise of management rights.
The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the grievance for failing to disclose a prima facie case.
The Grievance Settlement Board found that the union's assertions, even if accepted as true, did not provide objective facts capable of supporting an inference of age discrimination or bad faith.
The employer's motion was granted and the grievance was dismissed.
Union granted intervenor status and partial document production ordered in racial discrimination application.
The applicant, a correctional officer, alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of race and colour, specifically regarding the employer's failure to prevent a recurrence of racist hate mail.
In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed the applicant's request for production of documents and the Union's request for intervenor status.
The Tribunal granted the Union non-party intervenor status to address matters of broad application to the workplace.
The Tribunal also ordered the respondent to produce certain documents related to the investigation of the racist hate mail, finding them arguably relevant, while deferring other broader production requests until the applicant testifies at the hearing.
Hearing cancelled due to grievor's failure to provide particulars of the issue to be addressed.
The grievor requested a hearing arising from Minutes of Settlement over which the Vice-Chair remained seized.
A hearing was scheduled, but the grievor failed to provide particulars of the issue despite the employer's request.
As the parties were unable to prepare, the hearing was cancelled.
The Vice-Chair directed that particulars must be provided before any future hearing is scheduled.
Request to defer application pending internal workplace harassment investigation denied.
The respondents requested that the Tribunal defer consideration of the human rights application because the applicant had also filed a complaint under the corporate respondent's internal Workplace Discrimination and Harassment Policy.
The Tribunal denied the request, holding that an internal investigation or complaints resolution process does not constitute a 'proceeding' within the meaning of s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, and therefore does not raise the risk of inconsistent decision-making.
Human rights application deferred pending resolution of concurrent union grievances raising overlapping accommodation issues.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on race, colour, ethnic origin, disability, sex, and reprisal.
The respondents requested that the application be deferred pending the resolution of three outstanding grievances related to ergonomic recommendations, workload assignments, and skill development.
The Tribunal found that the issues in the application and the grievances overlapped significantly.
To avoid the risk of inconsistent decisions, the Tribunal ordered that the application be deferred until the conclusion of the grievance process.
Union's request for independent investigation into workplace hate mail denied as premature.
The union requested an order for the appointment of an independent investigator to investigate a racist hate mail campaign at the Toronto Jail, arguing the employer's internal investigation was inadequate.
The Grievance Settlement Board denied the request as premature, finding that the employer had made substantial efforts and that the parties must first address the implementation of recommendations from a previous review of the employer's investigation.
Request to reactivate deferred application dismissed due to unexplained five-month delay.
The applicant filed a Request to reactivate her deferred human rights application five months after the 60-day time limit expired following the conclusion of her Grievance Settlement Board proceeding.
The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish a good faith explanation for the delay, as she had been specifically directed to the reactivation rules and deadlines in the original deferral decision.
The request to reactivate was denied and the application was dismissed.
Grievances over severance pay calculation dismissed; collective agreement provided greater overall benefit than Employment Standards Act.
Four grievors were surplussed and elected to take a severance package.
The Union grieved the Employer's calculation of severance pay, arguing that under section 65 of the Employment Standards Act, severance should be based on years since the date of hire rather than the 'continuous service date' defined in the collective agreement.
The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievances, finding that the collective agreement provided a greater overall benefit to the bargaining unit than the ESA, as it included both standard severance and enhanced severance with no maximum amount.
Therefore, the ESA did not apply and the Employer's calculations were correct.
Human rights application alleging disability-based harassment dismissed at summary hearing for no reasonable prospect of success.
The applicant, a Youth Service Manager with an ankle injury, alleged discrimination and harassment based on disability after being moved to a new work location within a secure custody facility.
The respondent requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application.
The Tribunal found that the applicant's disability-related needs were fully accommodated and that his allegations of harassment, based on 'side glances' from co-workers, were speculative.
The Tribunal dismissed the application as having no reasonable prospect of success.
Employer ordered to disclose documents relating to supervisor's harassment complaint as they were arguably relevant.
In a grievance alleging unjust discipline and a poisoned work environment, the Union brought a motion for the disclosure of documents relating to a Workplace Discrimination and Harassment Prevention (WDHP) complaint filed by the grievor's supervisor against the same director.
The Employer opposed disclosure, arguing the documents constituted inadmissible similar fact evidence and were subject to a full and final settlement.
The Grievance Settlement Board granted the motion, holding that the documents were arguably relevant to the grievor's allegations of systemic discrimination and a poisoned work environment.
The Board distinguished between the threshold for disclosure and the stricter test for admissibility, which would be determined at a later stage.
Human rights application deferred pending completion of concurrent Grievance Settlement Board proceedings.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and a poisoned work environment based on race and colour.
The respondent employer and the intervenor union requested that the application be deferred because the parties had previously entered into a binding settlement before the Grievance Settlement Board (GSB) regarding the same workplace circumstances, and the GSB Vice-Chair remained seized of any issues arising from the settlement.
The Tribunal found sufficient overlap between the application and the grievance settlement, and deferred the application pending the completion of proceedings before the GSB to avoid parallel proceedings.
Employer ordered to provide investigative summaries prior to hearing on union's request for independent investigation.
The union requested a full, independent investigation into the provenance of anonymous racist letters that created a poisoned work environment at a correctional facility.
The appointed investigator provided a report, but the union was not satisfied and reiterated its request.
In preparation for the hearing on this request, the Grievance Settlement Board ordered the employer to confirm whether any other forensic behavioural profiles existed and to provide a detailed written summary of the steps taken to investigate a specific handwritten letter found in 2010.
Request to dismiss human rights application denied as prior grievance dealt with different timeframe.
The applicant, a correctional officer, filed a human rights application alleging racial discrimination and a poisoned work environment, including racist hate mail.
The respondent requested that the application be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the substance of the application had already been appropriately dealt with by the Grievance Settlement Board (GSB).
The Tribunal dismissed the respondent's request, finding that the GSB proceeding dealt with earlier allegations from 2005-2009, whereas the current application concerned new allegations from April 2010 onwards.
The Tribunal directed the matter to proceed.
Union granted intervenor status in human rights application; preliminary hearing directed on prior grievance settlement.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on race and colour.
The respondent requested dismissal, arguing the allegations were resolved by a prior grievance settlement.
The applicant's union, OPSEU, requested intervenor status.
The Tribunal granted OPSEU intervenor status, noting its significant interest in the allegations and potential impact on its members.
The Tribunal also directed a teleconference hearing to address the respondent's request for dismissal under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.
Evidence of facts underlying previously settled grievances is inadmissible absent special circumstances.
In a grievance alleging harassment and discrimination in the filling of temporary positions outside the bargaining unit, the union sought to introduce evidence of facts underlying two previously settled grievances to establish a pattern of improper employer conduct.
The employer objected to the admission of this evidence.
The Grievance Settlement Board upheld the employer's objection, reaffirming the sanctity of settlements.
The Board found no 'special circumstances' or flagrant employer conduct that would justify an exception to the general rule against litigating the factual matrices of resolved grievances.
Investigator directed to complete written report on workplace racist letters by May 31, 2012.
In an ongoing grievance arbitration concerning racist letters in the workplace, the Grievance Settlement Board received a confidential oral interim report from an appointed investigator.
The Board directed the investigator to complete the review and provide a written report by May 31, 2012, after which a further decision will be issued.
Employer's motion to dismiss reprisal complaint denied; Part VI whistleblower complaints exempt from standard procedural timelines.
The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the complainant's grievance alleging reprisal for disclosing wrongdoing.
The employer argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because the complainant did not provide proper notice under the Public Service of Ontario Act, 2006, and the allegations did not constitute a disclosure of wrongdoing under Part VI.
The Board found that the complainant's allegations of human rights breaches to his Deputy Minister qualified as a disclosure of wrongdoing.
The Board further held that the mandatory notice and timeliness requirements of Regulation 378/07 do not apply to reprisal complaints under Part VI.
The employer's motion was dismissed, and the complaint was allowed to proceed.
Employer's motion to dismiss granted; union's particulars failed to establish prima facie case of bad faith.
The employer brought a motion to dismiss the union's grievance on the basis that the particulars failed to establish a prima facie case of a collective agreement violation.
The grievance alleged violations of several articles, including bad faith in the exercise of management rights and loss of on-call pay due to a change in the grievor's position.
The Grievance Settlement Board found that the collective agreement did not obligate the employer to assign on-call duty, and the particulars did not disclose objective facts capable of establishing bad faith.
Grievance dismissed; termination upheld for persistent insubordination and failure to complete assignments despite progressive discipline.
The grievor, an Application Analyst with 10 years of service, was terminated for insubordination after a series of progressive disciplines (suspensions ranging from 1 to 20 days).
The employer alleged she repeatedly failed to attend mandatory meetings, provide weekly status reports, and complete assignments, while taking unauthorized medical leaves.
The union argued the conduct was non-culpable due to stress from her mother's illness and perceived harassment by her supervisor.
The Grievance Settlement Board found the employer established insubordination, noting the grievor's intentional disregard for her supervisor's authority and failure to correct her behaviour despite numerous warnings.
The grievance was dismissed.
Disabled employee working part-time hours due to workplace injury entitled to full-time benefit subsidies.
The grievor, a Worker Advisor, suffered a compensable workplace injury and returned to work on permanent modified duties working half-days.
The Employer converted her status to part-time and reduced its contributions to her health and welfare benefits accordingly.
The Union grieved, arguing that under the collective agreement, an employee in receipt of a WSIB award is entitled to continued benefit subsidies at the full-time level regardless of a reduction in hours.
The Grievance Settlement Board agreed, finding that the specific collective agreement provision protected the grievor's full-time benefit entitlements.
The Board also found the grievor was entitled to full salary for the first 65 days of her absence and directed the parties to calculate the amounts owing.
