Dean Ardron

The Union grieved the Employer's practice of not accruing vacation credits for employees on WSIB during months 4 to 9 of their absence.

The Collective Agreement provided that employees on WSIB for the first three months were on a paid leave of absence and accrued vacation credits, but after three months, they were paid directly by WSIB.

The Arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that under the Collective Agreement, employees only earn vacation credits when working or on a paid leave of absence.

The Arbitrator also rejected the Union's human rights argument, holding that it is not discriminatory to differentiate compensation between working employees and non-working employees off due to illness.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability, claiming the respondent failed to accommodate her medical restrictions between May 2007 and October 2008.

The respondent brought a preliminary request to dismiss the application for delay, as it was filed in July 2010, well beyond the one-year limitation period under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant argued the delay was incurred in good faith because she was pursuing internal negotiations for compensation until August 2009.

The Tribunal found that the respondent's refusal to pay compensation in August 2009 was not a new incident of discrimination, and the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the subsequent 11-month delay in filing the application.

The application was dismissed for delay.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an arbitration award that granted statutory holiday pay to employees on inactive status receiving WSIB benefits.

The employer argued the arbitrator failed to address its central argument under s. 24(1) of the Employment Standards Act, 2000, which would result in zero holiday pay for these employees.

The Divisional Court found the arbitrator's decision unreasonable, as it lacked justification and intelligibility regarding how the entitlement to payment was determined without addressing the statutory formula.

The application was allowed and the issue remitted to a new arbitrator.