Dean Ardron

The union filed a grievance alleging the employer breached the collective agreement and the Human Rights Code by placing the grievor on an unpaid leave of absence for failing to comply with its mandatory Covid-19 vaccination policy.

The grievor objected to the vaccine on religious grounds but deliberately chose not to apply for an exemption because he believed he should not have to share his religious beliefs with the employer.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that the employer's duty to accommodate was not triggered because the grievor failed to make his need for a religious exemption known.

The Employer moved to bifurcate the hearing to address a preliminary objection to the Grievance Settlement Board's jurisdiction, arguing that the Union's withdrawal of two earlier grievances on the same issue precluded the current grievance.

The Union opposed bifurcation, arguing that the factual history surrounding the prior withdrawals was complex and relevant to both the preliminary objection and the merits.

The Arbitrator denied the motion to bifurcate, finding that the Employer failed to establish that deciding the preliminary issue first would result in substantial savings of time and resources, given the factual disputes about the parties' understandings when the prior grievances were withdrawn.

The union filed a policy grievance challenging the employer's decision to contract out work at a rail maintenance facility.

The employer brought a preliminary motion arguing that the union improperly expanded the scope of the grievance, that the allegations were premature, and that allegations regarding layoffs and terminations could not be pursued as a policy grievance under Article 4.5 of the collective agreement.

The arbitrator held that Article 4.5 precluded the union from pursuing the layoff and termination allegations as a policy grievance because they directly affected identifiable employees who could file individual grievances.

However, the arbitrator dismissed the employer's arguments regarding the scope of the grievance and prematurity, finding that the union's allegations about 'contracting in' and the timing of the announcement were inherent to the original grievance and that the matter was ripe for adjudication.

The Union requested pre-hearing disclosure of documents relating to individual exceptions to the Employer's mandatory vaccination policy requested under the grounds of creed or disability.

The parties agreed the documents were arguably relevant but contained private and sensitive information.

The arbitrator exercised authority under section 48(1) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 to order the Employer to disclose the requested documents, subject to strict confidentiality conditions restricting their use and dissemination.

The Employer brought a preliminary motion arguing the Union had not established a prima facie breach of the collective agreement.

The grievance challenged the Employer's decision to place the Grievor on unpaid leave for failing to comply with a mandatory Covid-19 testing policy, arguing it was unreasonable to deny the Grievor's request to work from an alternate location.

The Arbitrator found that the agreed facts did not support the Union's contention that the decision was unreasonable, and the Union had no evidence to contradict the Employer's rationale.

The grievance was dismissed.

In a grievance arbitration between the Amalgamated Transit Union and Metrolinx, the parties agreed to make best efforts to provide mutual disclosure and particulars by a specified date.

The union agreed to provide the grievor's medical and benefits records, as well as particulars of accommodations not provided.

The employer agreed to provide documents related to its efforts to accommodate the grievor's medical conditions.

The hearing was adjourned to dates to be arranged.

The union filed a policy grievance regarding the employer's mandatory vaccination and vaccination disclosure announcements.

The parties appeared before the arbitrator to set a litigation schedule.

The employer raised a preliminary issue regarding the timeliness of the referral to arbitration, which will be argued based on an agreed statement of facts.

The arbitrator also set deadlines for the production of documents and the exchange of particulars, and scheduled a further conference call to determine next steps.

The applicant unions sought interim injunctions to restrain the respondent employers from enforcing mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policies pending the outcome of labour arbitrations.

The court dismissed the Sinai application on the basis that the labour arbitration process provided an adequate alternative remedy, precluding the exercise of the court's residual jurisdiction.

The court dismissed the TTC application on the merits of the injunction test, finding that the loss of employment or income did not constitute irreparable harm and that the balance of convenience strongly favoured the employer's obligation to protect public health and workplace safety.

In a discharge grievance involving a transit safety officer's alleged excessive use of force, the employer brought a motion to call its use-of-force expert witness in two installments.

The employer proposed that the expert first testify about training in its case-in-chief, but reserve his opinion on the appropriateness of the grievor's use of force for reply, after hearing the grievor's testimony.

The union opposed the motion, arguing it amounted to improper case splitting and deprived the union of knowing the case to meet.

The arbitrator dismissed the employer's motion, holding that the usual order of proceedings should apply to prevent prejudice to the union and avoid a protracted, splintered hearing.

The Union filed a policy grievance claiming that its bargaining rights extended to the PRESTO division of Metrolinx, arguing that PRESTO was functionally integrated into Metrolinx and that certain positions within PRESTO performed bargaining unit work.

The Employer maintained that the Union's bargaining rights were restricted to the GO Transit division, as explicitly stated in the collective agreement.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the collective agreement clearly restricted bargaining rights to GO Transit and that PRESTO existed as a legitimate, identifiable division without sufficient functional integration to extend the bargaining unit.

In an arbitration proceeding, the employer requested a subpoena for a patient's medical records from a hospital.

The hospital's representative agreed to release the records upon receipt of a written order and authorization.

The union did not oppose the arrangement.

The arbitrator found the materials arguably relevant and ordered the hospital to disclose the records to employer counsel, who would then provide a copy to union counsel.

The Union filed a policy grievance challenging the Employer's requirement that employees complete detailed Attending Physician Statements for short-term disability/sick leave and accommodation requests, and submit them to a third-party provider (Oncidium).

The Arbitrator held that requiring the STD/Sick Leave form in the first instance for absences over 5 days breached the Collective Agreement, which only required a basic medical certificate provided to the supervisor.

The Arbitrator also found the Accommodation form was inappropriately broad and intrusive at the initial stage of the accommodation process.

Finally, the Arbitrator ruled that the Employer must pay for the completion of the forms if they require a medical examination.

In a grievance arbitration concerning the termination of a bus driver for impaired driving, the union brought a motion for the production of documents related to the employer's proposed expert witness.

The union sought the expert's retainer letter, contracts between the expert and a third-party testing company, and the employer's requests for proposals for its drug testing program, citing concerns about the expert's independence.

The arbitrator granted the motion in part, ordering the production of the retainer letter as it contained foundational instructions to the expert and any litigation privilege was waived by putting the expert forward.

The requests for the third-party contracts and RFPs were dismissed as the employer did not control the expert's contract and the other documents lacked sufficient relevance.

The Employer brought a motion to dismiss the grievance for abuse of process after the Grievor failed to comply with a prior interim decision requiring him to facilitate the production of arguably relevant documents.

The Grievor objected to signing consent forms until other matters were addressed.

The Arbitrator found that the Grievor had failed to comply with the order, noting that disagreement with an order does not excuse non-compliance.

However, given the serious consequences of dismissing a termination grievance, the Arbitrator declined to dismiss the grievance at this stage and granted the Grievor a final opportunity to comply by a specified date, warning that continued failure would result in dismissal.

The Union grieved the Employer's decision to remove the grievor from his job as a transit bus driver after a drug test revealed his use of medical cannabis.

During the hearing, the Employer sought to call Dr. Neal Sutton as an expert witness to opine on the safety of a daily medical cannabis user driving a bus.

The Union objected, arguing Dr. Sutton lacked the requisite expertise and objectivity, given his prior involvement in advising the Employer on the grievor's drug test.

The Arbitrator held a voir dire and determined that Dr. Sutton, as a physician who prescribes cannabis and advises employers on its effects, is qualified to give expert evidence.

The Arbitrator also found that Dr. Sutton's relationship with the Employer goes to the weight of his evidence rather than its admissibility, applying the threshold test from White Burgess.

The Union filed a policy grievance asserting that Article 39.4(6) of the 2014 collective agreement, which provided a $0.25/hour annual wage increase for Transit Safety Officers, continued to form part of the 2018 collective agreement.

The Employer argued that the 2018 Memorandum of Settlement, which provided for across-the-board wage increases, implicitly removed the specific increase for Transit Safety Officers.

The Arbitrator found that the 2018 Memorandum did not expressly remove the provision and that the across-the-board increases served a different purpose than the specific wage adjustment for Transit Safety Officers.

The grievance was allowed, and the Arbitrator declared that Article 39.4(6) forms part of the 2018 collective agreement.

The Union brought a preliminary motion to adjourn the grievance arbitration hearing to permit the Grievor to obtain an independent medical examination (IME) report from a psychiatrist or psychologist.

The Employer sought production of documents from the Crown and Police relating to the Grievor's alleged harassment of certain individuals.

The Arbitrator granted the adjournment, set a timeline for the IME report and related medical records, and directed the Union and Grievor to take reasonable steps to facilitate the production of the requested Crown and Police materials.

The Union waived its right to seek back wages for the period of the adjournment.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued an interim decision on consent directing the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH) to provide all documents and records related to the grievor to the union's counsel.

The union was then directed to produce all arguably relevant documents to the employer without delay, advising of any redactions.

The Union brought an application for interim relief to stay the Employer's use of a new electronic 'Bid Web' sign-up system for crew selection, arguing it was introduced unilaterally in breach of the collective agreement and caused harm by preventing junior drivers from knowing senior drivers' choices.

The Arbitrator dismissed the application, finding that the standard sign-up system remained available and the Employer had addressed the Union's concerns.

The balance of harm favoured the Employer, given its investment in training and developing the electronic system.

In a grievance arbitration concerning the scope of the Union's bargaining rights, the Employer sought to bring a summary judgment motion after Phase 1 of the evidence.

The Union objected, arguing the parties' procedural agreement precluded such a motion.

The arbitrator agreed with the Union, finding the agreement's provisions for a holistic approach and final argument on all issues precluded a summary judgment motion at this stage.

The Union also sought an order requiring the Employer to detail discrepancies between job descriptions and actual duties for 88 positions.

The arbitrator dismissed this request, holding it was inappropriate in an adversarial proceeding to compel the Employer to conduct extensive research to build the Union's case.