73 total
Consent order issued requiring the Union to provide particulars of poisoned work environment allegations.
In a grievance arbitration concerning allegations of a poisoned work environment, the Grievance Settlement Board issued a consent order requiring the Union to provide particulars to the Employer by a specified date.
Employer breached collective agreement by relying solely on interview scores, but no compensation awarded.
Three grievors challenged the employer's decision not to appoint them to Income Support Specialist positions following a job competition.
The union argued the selection process was flawed because the employer relied almost exclusively on interview scores and failed to consider past performance, resumes, personnel files, or conduct reference checks for all applicants.
The Grievance Settlement Board found that the employer contravened the collective agreement by failing to properly assess all relevant information.
However, the Board declined to award monetary compensation because the union failed to provide evidence demonstrating that the grievors would have been relatively equal to the successful candidates had the process been conducted properly.
The union explicitly declined a re-run of the competition, so the Board issued a declaration of the breach with no further remedy.
Grievance allowed; employer ordered to appoint grievor after relying solely on flawed interview scores.
The union filed a grievance alleging the employer violated the collective agreement by denying the grievor a Senior Administrative Clerk position following a job competition.
The employer relied solely on interview and practical test scores, failing to consider the grievor's successful performance in the position in an acting capacity or to conduct reference checks.
The Grievance Settlement Board found this sole reliance on interview scores violated the collective agreement.
Concluding that the grievor would have been found at least relatively equal to the successful candidate had her experience been properly assessed, the Board ordered the employer to appoint the grievor to the position retroactively and compensate her for lost earnings.
Application for judicial review dismissed; employment ended by mutual agreement, precluding statutory termination benefits.
The applicant sought judicial review of a Public Service Grievance Board decision denying him statutory benefits for terminated or laid-off employees.
The Divisional Court upheld the Board's finding that the applicant's employment ended by mutual agreement and in exchange for valuable consideration, rather than by termination or layoff.
The application was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.
Final decision confirming implementation of systemic remedies for a poisoned work environment at the Toronto Jail.
This is the final decision in a series of mediation-arbitration proceedings addressing systemic remedies for a poisoned work environment at the Toronto Jail between 2005 and 2008.
The Vice-Chair reviewed the 48 Objectives Requiring Action agreed upon by the parties to address issues of racism, harassment, and workplace culture.
The Board concluded that, subject to an ongoing challenge regarding the investigation of hate letters, all agreed actions have been successfully carried out and implemented.
Employer ordered to pay damages to correctional officers for failing to adequately address a poisoned work environment.
The union filed a policy grievance on behalf of two groups of correctional officers, alleging the employer failed to provide a workplace free from harassment and discrimination.
The workplace became poisoned due to anonymous racist and threatening hate mail, leading to severe racial divisions and a breakdown of trust among staff.
The employer admitted liability for negligence in its handling of the situation between 2005 and 2008.
The arbitrator found that while the employer did not write the letters, its response was inadequate and failed to sufficiently address the systemic issues until 2008.
The arbitrator awarded $1,500 to each affected employee in Group A and $1,000 to each affected employee in Group B for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.
Board appointed an independent reviewer to examine the Ministry's investigation into workplace hate crimes.
The Grievance Settlement Board issued a brief decision appointing Michael A. Davis to conduct a review of the Ministry's investigation into hate crimes, following consultation with the parties.
Application alleging breach of settlement and reprisal dismissed; administrative errors did not constitute breach or intentional retaliation.
The applicant alleged that the respondents breached a settlement agreement resolving an earlier human rights complaint and engaged in reprisal.
The applicant claimed the respondents failed to pay pension contributions on time, appointed an inappropriate contact person, breached confidentiality, and failed to provide a Record of Employment and tax receipts.
The Tribunal found that the pension payment was made despite an administrative error, the appointment of the contact person did not violate the settlement, and there was no requirement in the settlement to provide the tax documents.
The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding no breach of the settlement and no evidence of an intention to retaliate to support the reprisal claim.
Tribunal grants leave to withdraw 2009 application and allows amendment of 2010 application on consent.
The applicant sought to withdraw his 2009 human rights application against the Ministry and proceed with his amended 2010 application against both the Ministry and his union.
The respondents consented to the amendment of the 2010 application without prejudice to their positions on the merits.
The Tribunal granted leave to withdraw the 2009 application, allowed the amendment of the 2010 application, and set a schedule for the respondents to file amended responses addressing their preliminary objections.
Board issues further directions on the implementation of systemic remedies for workplace discrimination and harassment.
This decision follows previous rulings dealing with systemic remedies for discrimination and harassment at the Toronto Jail.
The Grievance Settlement Board reviewed the progress of the employer and the union in implementing agreed-upon objectives, including staffing analyses, performance development plans, and human rights training.
The Board noted the withdrawal of several union proposals that were addressed by a new workplace discrimination and harassment policy, and issued further directions on the handling of future complaints.
Bargaining unit status for a job competition is determined as of the posting's closing date.
In a grievance concerning a job competition, the parties asked the Grievance Settlement Board to determine a preliminary issue regarding the appropriate standard for assessing applicants.
The collective agreement provided a preference for AMAPCEO unit applicants where qualifications and ability were relatively equal.
The successful applicant, originally from outside the unit, acquired AMAPCEO unit status after the posting closed but before the final selection was made.
The Board held that an applicant's status must be determined as of the date the job posting closes, not the date of final selection, to ensure certainty and prevent potential manipulation of the process.
Three union grievances regarding privacy in the Polaris system and denial of union leave dismissed.
The union filed three grievances on behalf of the grievor.
The first challenged the employer's practice of printing the grievor's name on Polaris system abstracts, which the Board dismissed as it was founded solely on the management rights clause and did not breach the collective agreement.
The second alleged improper denial of union leave on December 24, 2008, which the Board dismissed because the employer reasonably concluded it was not possible to adhere to the schedule due to staffing shortages.
The third alleged improper denial of union leave for voting on January 30, 2009, which the Board dismissed, finding the employer acted reasonably by granting three of four requested days and offering partial leave for the fourth.
Grievance Settlement Board lacks jurisdiction to determine pension contribution entitlement where it depends on LTIP eligibility.
The Union filed grievances challenging the Employer's decision to change the grievor's status from full-time to part-time and the resulting changes to her pay and benefits, including the continuation of pension contributions under article 42.3 of the collective agreement.
The Employer raised a preliminary objection, arguing that the Grievance Settlement Board lacked jurisdiction to determine the grievor's entitlement to pension contributions because it required a determination of her eligibility for Long Term Income Protection (LTIP) benefits, which falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Joint Insurance Benefits Review Committee (JIBRC).
The Vice-Chair upheld the preliminary objection, finding that the threshold question of LTIP eligibility must be resolved by the JIBRC, and therefore the Board lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate this aspect of the grievances.
Motion to enforce statutory entitlements despite a clear settlement agreement releasing all claims dismissed.
The applicant brought a motion alleging that the employer failed to comply with a settlement agreement and that the agreement contained illegal elements by contracting out of statutory entitlements under the Employment Standards Act.
The applicant sought statutory severance pay, pay in lieu of notice, and damages.
The Public Service Grievance Board found the settlement agreement to be clear, unambiguous, and enforceable.
The Board held that the applicant had released the employer from all claims and that there was no illegality in the agreement.
The motion was dismissed.
Individual grievor lacks standing to unilaterally withdraw grievance where union has carriage and opposes withdrawal.
The individual grievor sought to withdraw his grievance regarding a poisoned work environment and hate mail at the Toronto Jail, intending to pursue his claims before the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.
The union and the employer opposed the withdrawal.
The Grievance Settlement Board denied the request, holding that the union has exclusive carriage of the grievance and the individual has no standing to withdraw it.
Furthermore, the request was made at an advanced stage of a comprehensive systemic remediation process, making withdrawal inappropriate and an abuse of process.
Employer ordered to disclose handwriting expert and recommend reviewer for workplace hate crimes investigation.
The Union raised concerns about the thoroughness and pace of the Employer's investigation into hate crimes at the Toronto Jail, specifically regarding a letter discovered in April 2010 and another received in November 2010.
The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the Employer to disclose the identity of its handwriting expert by January 31, 2011, and to recommend a candidate to review the investigations by December 17, 2010.
The Union was given deadlines to respond to these appointments, with any unresolved issues to be addressed at a subsequent hearing.
Motion to bifurcate grievance proceedings granted in part to determine a discrete legal issue.
The Association brought a motion to bifurcate the proceedings arising from a job competition grievance.
The Association sought to have two issues determined separately: whether the qualified complainant should have been awarded one of the unfilled permanent positions, and whether the competition was fundamentally flawed for failing to consider her previous experience.
The Employer opposed the motion, arguing it would cause substantial prejudice and that the entire selection process needed to be examined.
The Grievance Settlement Board granted the motion in part, allowing bifurcation only for the first issue, as it involved a legal/interpretive question that could likely be argued on undisputed facts without requiring a full inquiry into the selection process.
Grievance Settlement Board reviews and updates the status of systemic remedy action plans at Toronto Jail.
The Grievance Settlement Board issued a follow-up decision regarding the implementation of systemic remedies at the Toronto Jail.
The Vice-Chair reviewed the progress of various action plans, including the issuance of Standing Orders, peer coaching, dress code enforcement, staffing analysis, performance development plans, and workplace discrimination and harassment training.
Several objectives were deemed accomplished, while others remain subject to ongoing monitoring and future meetings between the union and the employer.
Grievances dismissed on the condition that the Employer engage an outside facilitator for workplace resolution training.
The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the Employer to engage an outside facilitator to conduct workplace resolution training for the Victim Witness Assistance Office in North Bay.
On this basis, the grievances were dismissed.
Board lacks jurisdiction over grievances referred to arbitration beyond mandatory time limits despite employer's failure to hold Stage Two meeting.
The Employer raised a preliminary objection regarding the Board's jurisdiction to hear six grievances filed by the grievor, arguing they were referred to arbitration beyond the mandatory time limits in the Collective Agreement.
The Union argued the delay was caused by the Employer's failure to hold a Stage Two meeting, and thus the time limits for referral had not been triggered or should be extended.
The Board held that the lack of a Stage Two meeting meant there was no settlement, and the Union was required to refer the matter to arbitration within the specified time limit after the deadline for the Employer's decision had passed.
As the referral was more than two months late, the Board lacked jurisdiction to hear the six grievances.
