188 total
Employees sent home for failing to submit Covid-19 test results awarded 50% or 100% pay depending on fault.
The Union filed multiple grievances regarding employees at the Toronto South Detention Centre who were sent home without pay for failing to submit negative Covid-19 rapid antigen test results prior to their shifts.
The Arbitrator ruled that employees who failed to submit results due to their own fault are entitled to 50% of their wages for the missed shift.
Employees who can demonstrate they took the test and attempted to submit the results, but were prevented by technological issues, are entitled to 100% of their wages, subject to providing required documentation within 60 days.
Motion to dismiss granted for gathering grievance but denied for Joint Health and Safety Committee grievance.
The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss two union grievances related to COVID-19 workplace safety at a correctional institute for failing to disclose a prima facie case.
The first grievance alleged the employer violated the collective agreement and the Occupational Health and Safety Act by holding a staff appreciation drop-in event in March 2020.
The arbitrator dismissed this grievance, finding the union's particulars lacked facts showing the event was actually unsafe.
The second grievance alleged the employer circumvented the Joint Health and Safety Committee (JHSC) by shifting health and safety responsibilities to an employer-controlled committee.
The arbitrator dismissed the employer's motion regarding the second grievance, finding it arguable that the statutory duty to take every reasonable precaution could require scheduling more frequent JHSC meetings during a pandemic.
Grievances dismissed as improper collateral attack where union failed to appeal prior OHSA inspector decisions.
The union filed four grievances relating to health and safety concerns at a correctional facility during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic.
In each case, the union had previously sought an order from a Ministry of Labour inspector under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, but the inspector declined to make an order.
Instead of appealing the inspectors' decisions to the Ontario Labour Relations Board, the union filed grievances.
The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the grievances.
The arbitrator granted the motion, finding that the grievances constituted an improper collateral attack on the inspectors' decisions and were barred by issue estoppel, as the union had chosen the statutory enforcement route and failed to exhaust its appeal rights.
Grievances dismissed due to grievors' failure to respond to information requests by the ordered deadline.
The Grievance Settlement Board previously ordered that any grievors who did not respond to the Union's request for information by October 4, 2023, would have their grievances dismissed.
Several grievors failed to respond by the deadline.
Consequently, the arbitrator dismissed their respective grievances and remained seized of the remaining grievances.
Grievance dismissed; one-day suspension upheld for correctional officer who failed to wear mandated COVID-19 mask.
The union grieved a one-day suspension imposed on a correctional officer for failing to wear a mandated surgical mask and coming within six feet of other staff during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The arbitrator found the employer proved the misconduct via CCTV footage showing the grievor eating without a mask in close proximity to colleagues.
Given the serious health and safety risks and the grievor's lack of remorse, the arbitrator upheld the one-day suspension as an appropriate penalty and dismissed the grievance.
Grievance dismissed; three-day suspension upheld for correctional officer's repeated failure to wear safety goggles.
The union grieved a three-day suspension imposed on a correctional officer for failing to wear safety goggles on three separate occasions during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The employer discovered the infractions incidentally while reviewing CCTV footage for contact tracing purposes.
The arbitrator held that the use of CCTV for contact tracing was a legitimate safety measure under the collective agreement, and that incidental observations of misconduct could be used for discipline.
The arbitrator rejected arguments that the employer condoned the behaviour or failed to apply progressive discipline, finding that the health and safety risks justified the penalty.
The grievance was dismissed.
Grievances for lost overtime and holiday pay during COVID-19 self-isolation dismissed for lack of collective agreement entitlement.
The Union filed multiple grievances alleging that the Employer violated the collective agreement by failing to compensate employees for lost overtime and holiday pay opportunities while they were required to self-isolate due to COVID-19.
The Union also claimed entitlement to pandemic-related monetary payments, including Short-Term Sickness Plan top-ups and Coronavirus Leave Paid.
The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievances, finding no clear language in the collective agreement requiring payment for overtime or holiday premiums when employees could not attend work.
The Board also held it lacked jurisdiction to review the Employer's administration of the Coronavirus Leave Paid program, as it was established outside the collective agreement.
Grievances dismissed; termination upheld for correctional officer who refused COVID-19 testing and fraudulently claimed sick leave.
The grievor, a correctional officer, was suspended and ultimately terminated for refusing to comply with the employer's COVID-19 Safe Workplace Directive, which required unvaccinated employees to undergo rapid antigen testing.
The grievor also claimed Short Term Sickness Plan benefits for a period during which he was absent due to his refusal to test, which the employer denied.
The arbitrator found that the grievor's refusal to test constituted insubordination and did not fall within the safety or privacy exceptions to the 'obey now, grieve later' rule.
The arbitrator also found that the grievor's claim for sick leave benefits was fraudulent.
The grievances challenging the suspension, the denial of sick leave benefits, and the termination were all dismissed.
Consent order granted dismissing grievances if grievors fail to respond to information requests by specified date.
The Employer requested an order that any grievors who do not respond to the Union's request for information by October 4, 2023, will have their grievances dismissed.
The Union did not oppose the request.
The Grievance Settlement Board granted the order on consent, appending a list of the affected grievances.
Multiple grievances consolidated on consent of the parties.
The parties agreed to consolidate multiple grievances under a single lead file number.
The arbitrator ordered the consolidation on consent and noted they were not seized of the matter.
Multiple grievances consolidated under a single lead file on agreement of the parties.
The Grievance Settlement Board issued a consent order consolidating multiple grievances under a single lead file number (GSB No. 2020-0572) on the agreement of the parties.
Mandatory off-duty COVID-19 rapid testing and reporting constitutes compensable work but not a call back.
The union filed grievances claiming compensation for employees required to self-administer rapid antigen COVID-19 tests and report the results via a mobile application outside of working hours.
The arbitrator found that the testing and reporting requirements constituted a claim on the employees' time and therefore qualified as compensable work.
However, the arbitrator dismissed the union's claim that the testing constituted a 'call back' under the collective agreement, as the provisions required either physical attendance at the workplace or direct employer contact between shifts.
The arbitrator also allowed the union's claim for reimbursement of data costs incurred to report results, limited to circumstances where free Wi-Fi was unavailable.
Grievances of individuals failing to respond to information requests by deadline ordered dismissed.
The Employer requested an order that any grievors who do not respond to the Union's request for information by July 6, 2022, will have their grievances dismissed.
The Grievance Settlement Board granted the order.
Employer breached accommodation agreement and human rights obligations by assigning limited duties to disabled correctional officer.
The Union filed grievances alleging the Employer failed to reasonably accommodate a Correctional Officer with asthma and sensitivity to cigarette smoke, and breached a prior agreement regarding his General Duty Officer (GDO) assignments.
The Arbitrator found that while the Employer's enforcement of the smoking policy did not amount to a failure to accommodate during the relevant period due to a lack of actual exposures, the Employer did breach the GDO Agreement and the Human Rights Code by assigning the grievor fewer and a more limited range of duties compared to other GDOs.
The Employer's discriminatory treatment caused the grievor significant psychological harm, including PTSD.
The Arbitrator awarded $3,000 for breach of the agreement, $25,000 in general damages, and $20,000 for mental anguish.
Consent direction issued for disclosure of grievor's WSIB records subject to strict confidentiality conditions.
In the context of a grievance arbitration, the parties agreed to the disclosure of the grievor's WSIB information to Employer counsel.
The Arbitrator issued a consent direction ordering the disclosure subject to strict confidentiality conditions, including that the documents only be provided to Employer counsel, not be copied further, be used solely for the preparation of the Employer's case, and be returned to Union counsel at the conclusion of the proceedings.
Grievance dismissed as further particulars failed to establish a breach of the duty to accommodate.
The union filed a grievance alleging the employer failed to accommodate the grievor's disability with respect to her workload.
Following a prior decision directing the union to provide further particulars of specific accommodation requests that were denied, the union submitted further particulars.
The arbitrator found that the employer had complied with all medically supported accommodation requests and that the new particulars did not establish a breach of the duty to accommodate.
A new allegation regarding environmental sensitivities was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as it was unrelated to the workload grievance.
Four individual workload grievances dismissed as barred by prior settlement; further particulars ordered for accommodation claim.
The employer sought the preliminary dismissal of five individual grievances advanced by the union, arguing they were barred by a prior memorandum of settlement that resolved a union grievance concerning excessive workloads and the implementation of a new software system.
The arbitrator reviewed the particulars of each grievance to determine if they raised materially the same issues as the settled union grievance.
Four of the grievances were dismissed as they were either abandoned, raised identical workload issues, or were derivative of the settled issues.
The fifth grievance was dismissed with respect to workload and stress claims, but the union was directed to provide further particulars regarding a specific failure to accommodate claim.
Arbitrator issues directions to remedy Employer's delay in providing settlement lieu days.
The Union alleged that the Employer breached a Memorandum of Settlement by delaying the creation of a lieu bank for affected employees until August 2017.
The arbitrator issued directions allowing employees to apply lieu days to unpaid leave taken since the settlement date and permitting extensions for those unable to use their days by the deadline due to exceptional circumstances.
The arbitrator also clarified that employees on temporary assignment or secondment to another Ministry as of the settlement date are entitled to the lieu days if they return to the Ministry by December 31, 2018.
Grievor entitled to legal indemnification where criminal court acquittal was explicitly based on good faith.
The union filed a grievance seeking indemnification for the grievor's legal costs incurred in defending a criminal charge of assault against an inmate, of which he was acquitted.
The collective agreement provided for indemnification where an employee is found not guilty 'because of acts done in good faith'.
The employer argued the arbitrator must independently determine if the acts were done in good faith, while the union argued the arbitrator must defer to the criminal court's reasons.
The arbitrator held that the specific language of the collective agreement linked the entitlement to indemnification to the reasons for the criminal court's acquittal.
Since the trial judge explicitly found the grievor acted in good faith, the condition for indemnification was met.
The grievance was allowed.
Ministry employee permitted to give expert opinion evidence on use of force in grievance arbitration.
During a grievance arbitration concerning the discharge of a correctional officer for alleged excessive force, the employer sought to call a Ministry employee as an expert witness on use of force.
The union objected to the expert providing an opinion on the specific facts of the case, arguing that the tribunal did not need expert assistance and that the proposed expert lacked impartiality due to his employment and prior assistance to the Crown at the grievor's criminal trial.
The arbitrator ruled the expert evidence admissible, applying the Mohan and WBLI tests.
The arbitrator found that the technical aspects of use of force in a correctional facility met the necessity criterion, and that the expert's employment and prior involvement went to the weight of the evidence rather than its admissibility, as there was no evidence he was unwilling or unable to discharge his duty to be independent and impartial.
