David Wynne Wright

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.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss two grievances alleging breach of Board orders, human rights, health and safety, and collective agreement provisions, arguing they were not referred to the Board in a timely fashion.

The union argued the parties had agreed to hold the grievances in abeyance pending settlement.

The Vice-Chair denied the motion, finding that dismissing the grievances would be a denial of natural justice given the abeyance agreement, the lack of prejudice to the employer, and the importance of allowing parties to rely on good faith agreements during settlement negotiations.

The union grieved that the employer violated the collective agreement by capping termination pay for employees whose work was transferred to the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA).

The employer argued that employees who accepted job offers with the CRA had voluntarily resigned and were therefore only entitled to termination pay accrued up to December 31, 2008.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the employer had severed the employment relationship by transferring the work, and the employees' choice to accept a job with the CRA was a 'deemed resignation' rather than a 'voluntary resignation'.

The grievance was granted, entitling the transferred employees to full termination pay.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the employee's 2003 grievance, arguing it had been abandoned due to a lack of action until May 2008.

The union argued the delay was due to the grievor receiving LTD and being too ill to proceed, and that the employer had not shown prejudice.

The Vice-Chair denied the motion, finding that while the delay was considerable, the medical evidence explained it and the employer provided no evidence of actual prejudice, making it equitable to allow a hearing on the merits.

The Ministry applied for judicial review of a Grievance Settlement Board decision finding that the Ministry breached the collective agreement by failing to create and fill a single Probation Officer 3 (PO3) position.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Board's interpretation of the collective agreement was reasonable and entitled to deference, as a literal interpretation would have led to an unrealistic result with no sensible purpose.

The employer brought two preliminary motions in a grievance arbitration.

The first motion sought to dismiss the grievances for lack of jurisdiction, arguing the grievor was a member of the OPPA bargaining unit, not OPSEU, following a certification order.

The board dismissed this motion, finding that because the grievor was on Long Term Income Protection (LTIP) at the time of the transfer, her status was suspended and she remained in the OPSEU bargaining unit.

The second motion sought to exclude evidence of events occurring prior to a 2001 Minutes of Settlement.

The board granted this motion in part, excluding evidence prior to the December 11, 2000 grievances settled by the MOS, as there were no exceptional circumstances to justify piercing the settlement, but declined to categorically exclude evidence between the grievance date and the signing of the MOS.

The union filed approximately 235 grievances alleging that the employer failed to make reasonable provisions for the health and safety of employees by exposing them to second-hand smoke in correctional facilities.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that many of the grievances were untimely.

The parties agreed to use one grievance as a test case.

The grievor had been exposed to second-hand smoke between 1991 and 2001, but did not file a grievance until November 2005, after learning of financial awards in other legal proceedings related to second-hand smoke.

The union requested an extension of the time limits under subsection 48(16) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the grievor was solely responsible for the lengthy delay and had not acted diligently in pursuing his rights.

The Board concluded there were no reasonable grounds to extend the time limit and dismissed the test case grievance as untimely.

The Grievance Settlement Board conducted a review of the implementation of its previous remedial orders aimed at restoring a workplace free from harassment and discrimination at the Toronto Jail.

The Board noted progress on several fronts, including the issuance of Standing Orders, management training, and the installation of security equipment.

The Board varied certain orders, establishing new deadlines for performance development plans, diversity training, and the implementation of the new Workplace Discrimination and Harassment Prevention (WDHP) policy.

The Board also clarified the role of the seconded Deputy-Superintendent in overseeing the restoration process.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued an update on the parties' organizational objectives and the implementation of agreed action plans at the Toronto Jail.

The decision outlines specific timelines and responsibilities for the Employer and the Union to complete various training initiatives, including anti-racism, conflict resolution, and human rights training, as well as policy updates regarding standing orders, dress codes, and workplace discrimination and harassment complaints.

The union brought a motion to declare a 2004 settlement agreement of no force and effect, arguing it had been frustrated.

The settlement provided the grievor with 130 sick days upon the cessation of his WSIB benefits.

The grievor's condition deteriorated, and his WSIB benefits were locked in until age 65, meaning he would likely never access the sick days.

The union argued this was a supervening event that frustrated the contract.

The employer raised a preliminary objection, arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction to interfere with a settled matter and that the doctrine of frustration did not apply.

The Vice-Chair agreed with the employer, finding that the continuation of WSIB benefits could reasonably have been contemplated by the parties and that performance of the contract was not strictly prevented.

The union's motion was dismissed, and the settlement remained intact.

The grievor requested an assignment to the position of Senior Records Clerk at the Toronto Jail pursuant to Article 8.6.3 of the Collective Agreement.

The employer denied the request, leading to a grievance.

Following a hearing, the Grievance Settlement Board directed that the grievor be assigned to the position on a permanent basis.

The Union filed nine grievances alleging the Employer violated the collective agreement by actions taken against the grievors regarding an alleged pattern of absences, and challenged the Employer's 'Best Practices' document.

The Employer raised a preliminary objection to the scope of the issues, arguing the document was not a formal policy and could only be challenged as applied to the individual grievors.

The Union acknowledged it would only challenge the aspects of the document applied to the grievors.

The Vice-Chair ruled that this concession obviated the need for a broader ruling on the preliminary motion, and deferred the issue of the scope of remedial jurisdiction as premature.

The Grievance Settlement Board established a hearing protocol for several grievances alleging harm and damages from a poisoned work environment.

The protocol sets out hearing dates for Group A and Group B grievances, limits the number of individuals the Union may have present, and establishes timelines for the exchange of will-say statements and proposed monetary resolutions.

The applicant, a university faculty member alleging sex discrimination in her promotion process, sought production of documents relating to a male colleague who was promoted around the same time.

The respondent and intervenors opposed production, arguing the documents were irrelevant and protected by confidentiality privilege.

The Tribunal ordered production of the male colleague's curriculum vitae, salary information, redacted reference letters, and redacted transmittal letter, finding them relevant as comparator evidence and not privileged under the Wigmore test.

Student course evaluations were not ordered produced as the applicant's own evaluations were not in evidence.

In a mediation-arbitration process concerning grievances over a poisoned work environment, the Grievance Settlement Board issued a procedural decision for the remaining unresolved individual grievances.

Pursuant to the collective agreement, the Board imposed limitations on evidence and set conditions for the arbitration.

To avoid lengthy litigation, the Employer accepted liability for negligence solely for the purpose of these cases.

The Board established a timeline for the exchange of updated will-say statements and written particulars of remedies sought, and directed that no oral evidence would be heard unless directed by the Vice-Chair.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued an update to its previous decisions regarding objectives and action plans to improve the work environment at the Toronto Jail.

The Board amended several objectives, including the process for the Coordinating Committee to address unresolved issues of racism, sexism, or sexual orientation, and directed the Ministry to provide written proposals regarding paid parking and managerial appointments.

The Board also updated the responsibilities for certain action plans and appointed new members to the Coordinating Committee.

The union sought interim relief to maintain a correctional officer's paid leave of absence pending the determination of his grievance regarding a poisoned work environment.

The grievor had been on paid leave for 17 months after receiving racially-motivated hate mail.

The employer offered to accommodate the grievor at six other correctional institutions, but the grievor refused, seeking to remain on paid leave.

The Board assumed jurisdiction to grant interim relief but dismissed the application, finding that the employer's offer of alternative work locations was a reasonable accommodation and the balance of harm did not favour allowing the grievor to remain off work with pay.

The grievor, a Youth Services Officer with asthma requiring accommodation from cigarette smoke, sought a lateral transfer to the Central East Correctional Centre (CECC).

The Employer denied the transfer, relying on a 2003 arbitration decision that placed the grievor at Brookside Youth Centre as the best accommodation option at the time.

The Grievance Settlement Board allowed the grievance, finding that the prior placement decision did not waive the grievor's transfer rights under the Collective Agreement.

By denying the transfer without claiming an inability to accommodate the grievor at the CECC, the Employer effectively denied him a right because of his disability, breaching the non-discrimination clause.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued a supplementary decision to update its previous decisions regarding systemic issues at the Toronto Jail.

The Board amended action plans and objectives, including scheduling Coordinating Committee meetings, clarifying staff rights to report wrongdoing under the Public Service of Ontario Act, 2006, and addressing racism and discrimination under the Human Rights Code.

The Vice-Chair remained seized with respect to the interpretation or implementation of the decision.

The applicant fertility centre sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision declaring that a 'health services integration' had occurred when the centre moved out of a hospital and hired some of the hospital's former unionized employees.

The Divisional Court applied the Dunsmuir framework to determine that the standard of review for the Board's interpretation of the Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act, 1997 was reasonableness.

The Court dismissed the application, finding the Board's conclusion that the centre was an integrated component of the hospital and its decision to apply the Act were reasonable and supported by the evidence.