Christopher Bryden

The Union requested particulars and production of documents in a grievance arbitration, and the Employer requested that conditions be imposed on the provision of the same.

The Vice-Chair ordered the Employer to provide the requested particulars and documents, including investigation reports and police records, subject to strict confidentiality conditions.

The parties consented to the substance of the order.

The union filed individual grievances alleging the employer failed to pay call-back pay as required by the collective agreement.

The parties agreed to have the Grievance Settlement Board rule on a preliminary interpretative issue based on assumed facts regarding whether the grievors, who had flexible start times within a designated window, had a 'next scheduled shift' within the meaning of the call-back pay provision.

The Board adopted a purposive approach and concluded that the grievors did have a next scheduled shift, remitting the matter back to the parties.

The union filed grievances on behalf of two employees who were screened out of a job competition for Compliance Officer positions and denied interviews.

The union alleged the employer violated the collective agreement by failing to properly assess their qualifications and ability.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the employer's screening process, which required specific technical knowledge related to mining and mine rehabilitation, was fair and reasonable.

The Board declined to interfere with the employer's assessment of the application materials and dismissed the grievances.

The union filed grievances alleging improper scheduling of a permanent part-time employee.

The parties sought a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of the collective agreement regarding the allocation of additional hours.

The arbitrator held that the employer is not required to offer hours outside a permanent part-time employee's recorded availability before scheduling a casual employee, nor is the employer required to modify a full shift to offer a portion of it to a permanent part-time employee.

The Union brought a motion to limit the evidence relating to the reasons for the grievor's discharge to seven weeks from the date he was provided with full reasons for termination.

The grievor was terminated for allegedly falsifying plant logs, with the employer relying on discrepancies between the plant log and security system records going back almost two years.

The Union argued the employer had constructive knowledge of the discrepancies and that it was unfair to expect the grievor to recall specific events from up to 23 months prior.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the motion, finding the employer acted promptly upon actual knowledge and that the grievor would not be prejudiced as the employer bore the burden of disproving his general explanations for the discrepancies.

The Union filed a policy grievance alleging the Employer violated the collective agreement by refusing to provide H1N1 vaccinations to institutional employees.

The Employer raised preliminary objections, arguing the grievance was moot because the H1N1 crisis had ended.

The Grievance Settlement Board applied the doctrine of mootness, finding that the issue of vaccinations for staff was no longer a live controversy and a decision on the merits would provide no practical guidance for future pandemics.

The grievance was dismissed as moot.