David Wynne Wright

At the outset of a hearing before the Grievance Settlement Board, a preliminary issue arose regarding the order of proceeding.

The union argued the employer must proceed first as it was a disciplinary matter, while the employer argued the union must proceed first as the grievor allegedly failed to comply with an earlier Board decision regarding a conflict of interest.

The Vice-Chair ruled that the employer must proceed first, finding that the matter could be characterized either as disciplinary or as an alleged breach of an earlier decision, and under either characterization, the onus rests with the employer.

The Union filed a group grievance alleging the Employer fostered an unsafe and poisonous work environment due to the threatening behaviour of a co-worker.

The Employer raised preliminary objections, arguing the Grievance Settlement Board lacked jurisdiction or should defer to the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) because some grievors had filed a concurrent complaint under the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The Employer also argued the grievance was untimely and failed to disclose a prima facie case.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the preliminary objections, finding the Board had concurrent jurisdiction and no legislative direction required deferral.

The historical allegations were deemed admissible to establish a pattern, and the pleadings were found sufficient to disclose a prima facie case.

The employer brought a preliminary motion arguing that the union's grievances regarding temporary assignments were in substance classification grievances, which fall outside the Grievance Settlement Board's jurisdiction.

The union alleged that the employer acted in bad faith and discriminatorily by granting temporary assignments to Water Group Leaders but not to Air Quality Analysts, partly as a reprisal for union activity.

The Board found that the union was not seeking a reclassification but rather challenging the exercise of management rights.

Because the union alleged that the employer's actions violated the collective agreement's non-discrimination clause, the Board held it had jurisdiction to hear the grievances on their merits.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Grievance Settlement Board decision that upheld a union grievance after the employer's consultant destroyed interview notes.

The Board found that the destruction of these documents irreparably prejudiced the union's case and prevented a fair hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Board did not deny natural justice by deciding the matter on a preliminary fairness issue without hearing the merits.

The Court further held that the Board had the implied statutory authority to enforce disclosure obligations by allowing the grievance.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued a direction regarding the placement of the grievor at the Brookside Youth Centre.

The Board directed the grievor to attend MSA training and, upon successful completion, commence duties as a Youth Services Officer starting with two weeks of orientation.

The Employer brought a preliminary motion to prohibit the Union from leading evidence related to events predating a June 2002 Memorandum of Settlement.

The Union sought to introduce this evidence to establish a pattern of discrimination against the grievor.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that the Union was precluded from presenting evidence about the facts and circumstances underlying the previously settled grievances, emphasizing the importance of preserving the sanctity of final settlements.

However, the Union was permitted to lead evidence about events occurring between the filing of the settled grievances and the current grievance, including evidence that the settlement itself was breached.

Four correctional officers filed grievances claiming travel time after the closure of L'Original Jail and their relocation to the Ottawa Carleton Detention Centre.

The employer objected that the grievances were untimely.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the claim arose from a March 2001 settlement and was not a continuing grievance.

The grievances were filed over three months late.

Applying the Becker Milk factors, the Board declined to exercise its discretion under section 48(16) of the Labour Relations Act to extend the time limits, finding the grievors were not diligent and deliberately delayed filing until they received mileage payments.

The grievances were dismissed.

The union filed grievances alleging sexual harassment by a managerial employee and sought his termination or reassignment.

The parties agreed to a preliminary procedure to determine three issues based on assumed facts.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that the union's pleadings disclosed a prima facie case of sexual harassment.

The Board further affirmed its jurisdiction to direct the employer to discipline or discharge a managerial employee in exceptional cases where absolutely necessary to effect a remedy.

However, the Board concluded that while the primary remedy of termination was not absolutely necessary in this case, the alternative remedies of removing the manager's supervisory powers or reassigning him might be appropriate.

The grievor, a Correctional Officer with asthma requiring a smoke-free workplace, was previously determined to be appropriately accommodated at the Brookside Youth Centre.

However, no vacancies existed.

Following the closure of other facilities, positions were transferred to Brookside, leaving one unfilled.

The Union sought to have the grievor placed in this unfilled position.

The Employer argued that the position was unfunded and that it had no obligation to create a job.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that placing the grievor in the unfilled transferred position did not amount to creating a new position and would not cause the Employer undue hardship.

The Employer was directed to place the grievor in the position.

The Grievance Settlement Board previously determined that the grievor, a Correctional Officer with asthma and sensitivity to cigarette smoke, should be placed at the Brookside Youth Centre to accommodate his medical needs.

Following the transfer of several positions to Brookside, one position remained unfilled.

The Union argued the grievor should be placed in this unfilled position, while the Employer opposed.

The Vice-Chair concluded that placing the grievor in the unfilled position was consistent with the Employer's duty to accommodate and did not constitute undue hardship.

The grievor, who has asthma, had been accommodated with steady day shifts for many years.

The employer sought to have the grievor try shift work and presented expert medical evidence indicating that the only way to determine if the grievor could tolerate shift work was to have him try it.

The union relied on past medical notes but did not call medical witnesses.

The arbitrator accepted the employer's expert evidence and concluded that the grievor should try shift work, subject to further medical review if it adversely affected his condition.

The Union brought a motion requesting that the Employer be directed to canvass certain employees about their interest in transferring to the Toronto East Detention Centre.

This was to facilitate the placement of the grievor, who required accommodation at the Brookside Youth Centre due to asthma and smoke sensitivity.

The Employer argued this was an unreasonable burden.

The Vice-Chair granted the motion, finding the request reasonable and consistent with the Employer's duty to accommodate.

The Employer raised a preliminary objection that the Union's grievance concerning the transfer of the Lakehead Psychiatric Hospital to St. Joseph's Care Group was untimely.

The Union alleged that the transfer agreement did not comply with the collective agreement regarding terms and conditions of employment and financial incentives.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the time for filing the grievance began to run when the Union received the transfer agreement in February 2000, not when it was advised in April 2003 that the financial incentive had not been paid.

The grievance was dismissed as untimely.

A third party, Mr. Keating, was granted full participation rights in the grievance proceedings.

Having recently retained counsel, the third party requested an adjournment of several scheduled hearing dates.

Over the union's objection, the Vice-Chair granted the adjournment for the immediate hearing date and a subsequent date by agreement, but denied the request to adjourn dates scheduled for April, which had been set for some time.

The grievor, a Correctional Officer with asthma and a sensitivity to cigarette smoke, required workplace accommodation.

The Grievance Settlement Board previously found the Employer could not accommodate him at his home position and directed placement elsewhere.

The parties disputed whether the appropriate placement was at Brookside Youth Centre, Toronto West Detention Centre, or Central East Correctional Centre.

The Board determined Brookside was the most appropriate placement due to a significantly lower risk of exposure to cigarette smoke, as youth facilities have had a smoke-free policy for over ten years and the physical structure reduces risk.

The Union's claim for mileage for the additional travel distance to Brookside was dismissed, as the employee is obliged to cooperate reasonably with accommodation efforts and the additional distance was not significant.

The grievor, a Correctional Officer with asthma and a sensitivity to cigarette smoke, required accommodation after it was determined he could not be accommodated at his home position at the Toronto East Detention Centre.

The Employer offered a position at the Toronto West Detention Centre, which the grievor rejected.

The Grievance Settlement Board determined that the appropriate placement for the grievor was at the Brookside Youth Centre.

The Board also dismissed the Union's claim that the grievor was entitled to a mileage rate for the additional 19 kilometers he would be required to travel to Brookside.

The union sought compensation for a grievor's lost promotional opportunities and lost overtime arising from the employer's failure to accommodate his sensitivity to second-hand smoke.

The arbitrator dismissed the claim for lost promotional opportunities, finding the employer properly denied an acting position that would have placed the grievor in a smoke-filled environment.

The arbitrator granted the claim for lost overtime in part, awarding compensation based on an average of 5 lost overtime hours per month since 1994.

The parties resolved some outstanding issues arising from grievances filed by the grievor, a Correctional Officer with asthma who requires a smoke-free workplace.

The Grievance Settlement Board determined three remaining issues: (1) the Employer's offer of accommodation at a facility further from the grievor's home was not unreasonable based solely on the additional travel time and distance; (2) the grievor was entitled to interest on the amount paid for credits used to top up sick leave; and (3) the grievor was entitled to compensation for statutory holidays missed due to the Employer's failure to accommodate him.

The union filed a policy grievance challenging the Ministry's decision to allow certain classified employees to re-elect whether to transfer to a new private service provider, while denying the same opportunity to employees converted to classified status at a later date.

The union sought a declaration that the re-election was improper and an order allowing the later-converted employees to elect.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that even if the re-election breached the parties' memorandum of settlement, it did not detrimentally affect the employees for whom the union sought relief, as the settlement expressly stated they had no right of election.

The union grieved the layoff of Parental Support Workers (PSWs) and the transfer of some of their duties (defending arrears in family court) to lawyers in the Ministry's legal services branch.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that the transfer of family court work to lawyers violated an implied term of the collective agreement protecting bargaining-unit work, as the work was sufficient to occupy two full-time employees and historically belonged exclusively to PSWs.

However, the Board found that the grievors were not entitled to follow the work to the legal services branch under Article 20, because the transferred duties constituted much less than 50% of their former workload.

Finally, the Board concluded that the Ministry's broader decision to discontinue PSW services was a reasonable exercise of management rights, rationally related to the reorganization of the welfare system.