David Wynne Wright

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed several grievances due to the union's failure to deliver particulars in accordance with previous orders.

The hearing for the remaining grievances was adjourned to allow counsel to complete arguments on whether the union's particulars established a prima facie case, including whether the claims were precluded by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued a procedural decision on consent to suspend the investigation of Workplace Discrimination and Harassment Policy (WDHP) complaints filed by various grievors, as the substance of those complaints would be addressed within the grievances before the Board.

The Employer was directed to notify investigators and provide details of the affected complaints.

The Board also assigned additional hearing dates for specific grievors.

In a mediation-arbitration process concerning systemic issues of racism, discrimination, and harassment at the Toronto Jail, the Grievance Settlement Board directed the union and the employer to commit to a comprehensive set of objectives and action plans.

These directives aim to foster a fair, respectful, and inclusive work environment, addressing areas such as union-management collaboration, workplace hospitality, handling of hate mail, recruitment and promotion, orientation and training, operations, and conflict resolution.

The union filed grievances on behalf of three Air Quality Analysts (AQAs) after the employer reclassified both AQAs and Water Group Leaders (WGLs) to Scientist 4, but only temporarily assigned the WGLs to Acting Geoscientist 4, resulting in higher pay for the WGLs.

The union argued this differential treatment violated the collective agreement by breaching an implied duty of reasonableness and was motivated by anti-union animus against the grievors.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that under the Weber doctrine, it lacked jurisdiction to review the exercise of management rights for reasonableness unless the action impacted an express or implied right under the collective agreement, which was not established here.

Furthermore, the Board found no evidence that the employer's decision was tainted by anti-union animus, concluding it was driven by legitimate business concerns regarding the recruitment and retention of water scientists.

The grievor, a Youth Services Officer with asthma triggered by cigarette smoke, filed grievances alleging the Employer failed to accommodate his disability at the Brookside Youth Centre.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that while the Employer took some steps, it failed to take all reasonable steps to accommodate the grievor to the point of undue hardship, such as designating smoking areas away from building entrances.

The Employer was directed to compensate the grievor for monetary losses attributable to exposures on the grounds and to meet with the Union to discuss further accommodation.

However, the Board found the grievor was not entitled to be paid for a period he unilaterally absented himself from work.

During a grievance arbitration concerning alleged discrimination and differential treatment, the Employer brought a motion to restrict the Union from arguing that the differential treatment also constituted a breach of the management rights clause (Article 2) of the collective agreement.

The Employer argued this was an inappropriate expansion of the grievance.

The Grievance Settlement Board denied the motion, finding that the wording of the grievance was sufficiently broad to encompass arguments under Article 2 and did not restrict the complaint solely to the prohibited grounds of discrimination under Article 3.

The union filed a grievance challenging the employer's unilateral termination of a pilot project that paid a mentoring bonus to land ambulance dispatchers.

The union argued that the employer was estopped from discontinuing the practice for the life of the current collective agreement because it failed to give notice during collective bargaining of its intention to end the bonus.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the employer's initial implementation of the bonus as a 'pilot project' subject to evaluation reserved its right to discontinue it.

Furthermore, the parties' prior agreement to negotiate monetary outcomes of class standard reviews meant the employer's silence during bargaining could not reasonably be construed as a representation that the extra compensation would continue.

The parties sought clarification of a previous arbitration award regarding a compressed work week arrangement at the Whitby Mental Health Centre.

The issue was the definition of 'nursing staff' for the purpose of voting on nursing schedules.

The Vice-Chair clarified that, consistent with an earlier decision, the term 'nursing staff' includes Registered Nurses, Registered Practical Nurses, and Patient Care Assistants.

The parties reached an agreement on a comprehensive process for the exchange of medical information and documentation regarding grievors claiming physical or mental harm.

At the parties' request, the Grievance Settlement Board issued the agreement as a consent order, detailing the requirements for standard form reports, disclosure of treating health professionals, and the process for resolving disputes over further medical disclosure or WSIB file production.

The Union filed numerous grievances alleging systemic discrimination and the dissemination of threatening and racist letters.

The Employer sought an adjournment of hearing dates scheduled for October, arguing that the Union had delayed the proceedings and that the Employer needed time to prepare its case following a motion on the admissibility of evidence scheduled for September.

The Grievance Settlement Board denied the adjournment request, finding it premature to cancel hearing dates six months in advance based on a motion that had not yet been heard.

The union filed numerous grievances regarding the alleged exposure of correctional institution employees to tobacco smoke.

At the hearing, the list of outstanding grievances was uncertain.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the union to provide written particulars of each grievance by April 30, 2007, and ordered the employer to provide written particulars of any preliminary objections by June 29, 2007, before scheduling further hearings on preliminary matters or the merits.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the adjournment of scheduled hearing dates due to pending related criminal proceedings.

The Board also ordered the Union to provide signed consent forms for the grievor's OHIP, family physician, and chiropractor records.

The Employer was ordered to provide a full, unedited copy of the Preliminary Review Report and the Report of the Investigation into Allegations of Resident Abuse, including witness statements, as well as information regarding injuries to two residents.

The documents are to be used solely for the litigation.

The parties disputed the interpretation of compressed work week (CWW) agreements at the Whitby Mental Health Centre.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued declarations clarifying that the CWW agreements do not require an annual review unless requested or if termination is contemplated, specified voting procedures if a review occurs, clarified that team leaders are not always required to work 8-hour shifts, stated that up to 15% of staff may be required to work 8-hour shifts if operationally necessary, and confirmed that pre-existing shift change policies are not altered.

The grievances were terminated.

The union filed grievances alleging that the employer's decision to temporarily assign only Water Group Leaders as Acting Geoscientist 4, and not Air Quality Analysts, was arbitrary, discriminatory, and motivated by improper considerations including reprisal for union activity.

After the union closed its case, the employer moved for a non-suit.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the motion, finding that the union had met the low threshold of presenting 'some evidence' to support its claims, thereby requiring the employer to answer the case.

The employer appealed a Divisional Court decision dismissing its application for judicial review of an arbitrator's award.

The arbitrator had allowed a union grievance on a preliminary motion because the employer's consultant inadvertently destroyed documents relevant to the grievance, concluding that a fair hearing was impossible.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the Divisional Court erred in applying a reasonableness standard to an issue of natural justice.

The Court held that the inadvertent destruction of documents in a civil context is a procedural matter calling for procedural remedies, such as adverse inferences, rather than the extraordinary remedy of granting the grievance without a hearing on the merits.

The award was quashed and the matter remitted for a hearing on the merits.

The grievor, a communications officer at an ambulance dispatch centre, was found to be in a conflict of interest in 1996 because her husband operated a private non-emergency patient transfer business.

Following the Ministry's divestment of land ambulance services to municipalities in 2000, the Union argued the conflict no longer existed as the Ministry was no longer in competition with the husband's business.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the core of the conflict—the grievor's access to information that could benefit her husband's business—remained unchanged despite the divestment.

The union filed grievances alleging the employer failed to properly accommodate the grievor's asthma and sensitivity to cigarette smoke at a youth centre.

Prior to the hearing, the employer requested the grievor's complete decoded OHIP summary and clinical notes from all medical practitioners since June 2004.

The union opposed the breadth of the request, arguing it violated the grievor's privacy rights, and proposed providing a specific medical report from the grievor's family doctor instead.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the employer's broad request, finding it too invasive as the grievor was not making a generalized claim placing his entire medical history in issue.

The Vice-Chair directed the grievor to provide a medical report responding to specific questions about his asthma, absences, and stress-related problems.

The employer brought preliminary motions to dismiss three group grievances regarding the evaluation of a compressed work week agreement.

The employer argued the grievances were not arbitrable due to prior Minutes of Settlement and were untimely.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed both motions, finding that the union's 'acknowledgement' of the employer's evaluation criteria in the settlement did not constitute 'agreement' to them, and that the grievances were timely as they were filed shortly after the employer announced the review.

During an arbitration hearing, a dispute arose over certain requests for documents listed in a summons issued to a witness.

The Grievance Settlement Board heard submissions and ordered the witness to produce call records, ownership documents, and an employee list for MedStat Emergency Medical and Transfer Services, finding the documents arguably relevant to the issues in dispute.

The employer brought a motion to compel the attendance of a witness who failed to attend an arbitration hearing after being duly summoned.

The witness had been advised by counsel that he did not need to attend because he was not a Crown employee.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that under the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act and the Labour Relations Act, it has the authority to summon and enforce the attendance of any witness, including third parties, provided they live in Ontario and their testimony is relevant.

The Board ordered the witness to attend the next hearing date, noting that he could still object to producing requested documents at that time.