Grievance alleging systemic racial discrimination and reprisal in career advancement denied for lack of evidence.
The grievor, a Black man employed as a Correctional Officer, alleged that the Employer engaged in systemic discrimination, harassment, and reprisal, preventing his career advancement.
He cited several incidents, including unsuccessful applications for management positions, a disciplinary meeting regarding an email he sent, a scheduling error, and an investigation into preferential treatment of an inmate.
The Grievance Settlement Board found it lacked jurisdiction over the management position competitions.
Regarding the other incidents, the Board concluded there was no direct or circumstantial evidence that the grievor's race was a factor in the Employer's actions.
The grievance was denied.
Complaint dismissed as untimely; emailed notice is 'given' when delivered to inbox, not when read.
The complainant filed a complaint contesting an 8-hour suspension.
The employer raised a preliminary objection that the complaint was filed outside the mandatory 14-day time limit under Regulation 378/07.
The central issue was whether the dispute resolution period expired when the employer emailed its decision ('given') or when the complainant returned to work and read it ('received').
Applying the modern principle of statutory interpretation, the Board held that notice was 'given' when it was sent to and received in the complainant's inbox, making the complaint two days late.
The complaint was dismissed as untimely.
Adjournment granted due to grievor's medical inability to attend; new production deadlines ordered.
The Union requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing date because the grievor provided a medical note indicating she was unable to attend for health reasons.
The Employer did not oppose the adjournment but sought an order regarding the deadline for production and particulars set in a previous decision.
The Arbitrator granted the adjournment and ordered the Union to provide all relevant production and particulars by a specified date, warning that failure to comply could preclude reliance on those documents.
Arbitrator rules on preliminary motion to strike particulars and limits scope of document production.
The Employer brought a preliminary motion to strike certain paragraphs of the Union's particulars and requested production of the grievor's work and medical records from 2007 to the date of termination.
The Union objected to the breadth of the production requests.
The Arbitrator struck several paragraphs of the particulars, reserved decision on others pending further production, and limited the scope of the document production to records from 2013 and 2014 onwards.
The rulings were issued without reasons to expedite the proceedings.
Grievance regarding 2014 sick leave benefits dismissed as untimely due to unjustified three-year delay.
The Employer brought a preliminary motion arguing that a grievance filed on June 26, 2017, regarding Short Term Sickness Plan entitlements from 2014, was untimely.
The Union argued the delay was due to the grievor's lack of knowledge of the grievance procedure, her medical leave, and fear of retribution from alleged harassment.
The Arbitrator applied the factors for extending time limits under section 48(16) of the Labour Relations Act and found the 2.5 to 3-year delay was extreme and unjustified.
The Arbitrator concluded the Employer would be substantially prejudiced by the delay and dismissed the grievance as untimely.
Grievances dismissed after grievor failed to attend hearings and failed to provide ordered documentation.
The union requested an adjournment of a scheduled hearing date due to the grievor's 'family emergency', following a previous adjournment for a medical appointment.
The employer opposed the adjournment and sought dismissal of the grievances, arguing the grievor failed to provide adequate documentation for his absences as ordered by the Board.
The Arbitrator found the grievor demonstrated a lack of interest in advancing his grievances by failing to provide the required documentation and failing to comply with the Board's order.
The employer's motion was granted and the grievances were dismissed.
Adjournment granted with conditions requiring grievor to provide documentation explaining absences.
The union requested an adjournment on the day of the hearing because the grievor was absent due to an unparticularized family emergency.
The employer opposed the adjournment, noting a previous adjournment had been granted based on a specialist appointment that turned out to be a physiotherapy appointment.
The arbitrator granted the adjournment but ordered the grievor to provide a written explanation for his absence and documentation confirming his previous medical appointment, warning that failure to do so could result in the grievance being dismissed.
Complaint regarding loss of overtime during administrative suspension dismissed for failing to meet mandatory filing timelines.
The complainant was placed on an administrative suspension with pay pending an investigation into allegations of time theft.
The suspension letter advised he would not be eligible for overtime.
He filed a complaint regarding the loss of overtime pay.
The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the complaint on the basis that it was not filed within the mandatory 14-day timeline under O. Reg. 378/07.
The Board found that the complainant became aware of the circumstances giving rise to his complaint when he was initially suspended and told he was ineligible for overtime, not when the employer later confirmed he would not receive overtime pay.
As the notice was filed beyond the 14-day period, the Board lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the complaint.
Fixed-term employees on paid suspension are entitled to regular pay without deductions for statutory holidays.
The grievors, fixed-term employees on paid administrative suspension, had eight hours of pay deducted for each statutory holiday that fell during their suspension.
The union grieved the deductions.
The arbitrator allowed the grievances, finding that the letter of understanding between the parties created a complete regime for calculating pay during suspensions based on averaging previous hours worked, and did not provide for any reduction in pay for weeks containing statutory holidays.
Arbitrator ordered union to provide particulars and employer to make disclosure in grievance arbitration.
In a grievance arbitration involving multiple grievances filed by an employee, the Grievance Settlement Board made procedural orders at the request of the parties.
The Board ordered the union to provide full particulars relating to each grievance and the employer to make full disclosure relating to the discipline grievance, to be complied with 60 days prior to the next scheduled hearing date.
Complaint dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as it was filed before the dispute resolution period expired.
The complainant filed a complaint challenging a 15-day suspension.
The employer raised a preliminary objection that the complaint was untimely.
The Board found that the complaint was filed two days before the expiration of the mandatory 30-day dispute resolution period under section 9 of Ontario Regulation 378/07.
As compliance with the time limits is mandatory, the Board concluded it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and dismissed it.
Adjournment granted and written submissions directed for preliminary objection on timeliness.
The employer raised a preliminary objection regarding the timeliness of the complaint.
The matter was scheduled for an oral hearing, but the complainant requested a last-minute adjournment due to a scheduling mistake.
The employer agreed to the adjournment but requested the hearing proceed in writing.
The Board found the complainant's explanation fell short but granted the adjournment, directing the complainant to provide written submissions responding to the employer's preliminary objection.
Grievance dismissed; three-day suspension upheld for sending highly offensive and derogatory emails to a colleague.
The grievor, a Customer Service Representative, filed a grievance alleging the employer breached the Collective Agreement by issuing a three-day suspension without pay.
The discipline was imposed for violations of the Respectful Workplace Policy, specifically for sending highly offensive and inappropriate emails containing derogatory language to a female colleague.
The arbitrator found the grievor's behaviour warranted discipline and that the three-day suspension was modest and just in the circumstances.
The grievance was dismissed.
Complaint dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as it was filed before the statutory dispute resolution period expired.
The complainant, a Sergeant, filed a complaint with the Public Service Grievance Board alleging excessive discipline.
The employer raised a preliminary objection that the complaint was filed prematurely under O. Reg. 378/07.
The Board found that the complaint was filed three days before the expiry of the mandatory 30-day dispute resolution period.
As the statutory timelines are mandatory and the Board has no discretion to relieve against them, the Board concluded it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the complaint.
Adjournment granted to allow complainant to respond to employer's preliminary timeliness objection.
The Employer raised a preliminary objection that the complainant's grievance regarding workplace discipline was filed out of time under Regulation 378/07 of the Public Service of Ontario Act, 2006.
The Board directed the complainant to respond, but the complainant requested an adjournment because his representative was unavailable for medical reasons.
The Board granted the adjournment, noting it had inadvertently failed to copy the complainant on its earlier direction, and ordered the complainant to file a written response to the timeliness objection by a specified date.
Employer's motion to limit evidence to three years prior to the grievance granted.
The grievor filed a grievance alleging systemic discrimination and harassment that prevented his career advancement.
The Employer brought a preliminary motion to restrict the scope of evidence to incidents occurring within three years prior to the grievance (the 'three-year rule').
The Union argued for an extension to establish a pattern of discrimination.
The Arbitrator granted the Employer's motion, finding that the three-year period provided a fair balance and that no unique circumstances justified a departure from the rule.
Grievance challenging job competition dismissed for lack of evidence supporting allegations of bias and testing errors.
The grievor challenged the outcome of a job competition for a Case Processor position, alleging testing errors, bias by an interview panel member, and insufficient weight given to her past experience.
The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that the union failed to meet its onus of proving the allegations, as there was no evidence beyond the grievor's subjective belief.
Grievance dismissed for lack of jurisdiction due to failure to meet mandatory 14-day filing deadline.
The complainant, a public servant, filed a complaint contesting a two-day disciplinary suspension.
The employer raised a preliminary objection that the complaint was untimely under Regulation 378/07 of the Public Service of Ontario Act.
The complainant received notice of the suspension on June 30, 2017, but did not file his formal notice of complaint until July 21, 2017, exceeding the mandatory 14-day time limit.
The Board held that the time limits are mandatory and it lacks jurisdiction to extend them.
The employer's preliminary objection was upheld and the complaint was dismissed.
Grievance regarding overtime distribution resolved by granting grievor right of first refusal for future survey.
The union filed a grievance alleging the employer failed to distribute overtime fairly and equitably during a Moose Aerial Inventory Survey.
The parties submitted the grievance to mediation/arbitration.
Based on the parties' representations during mediation, the arbitrator issued a consent award granting the grievor the right of first refusal to participate as an observer in the upcoming Winter Moose Cover Survey.
