Ed Holmes

The union requested an adjournment of the hearing because the grievor was on long-term income protection and his illness prevented him from assisting in the preparation of his case.

The employer opposed the request, citing significant delay and diminishing witness recall.

The Grievance Settlement Board granted a six-month adjournment to balance the prejudice to the parties and allow the grievor an opportunity to participate in the litigation.

The grievor's position was declared surplus and she sought to exercise her displacement rights to bump a more junior employee from the position of Secretary to the Director.

The employer denied the displacement, arguing the grievor lacked demonstrated experience in several core components of the job, such as drafting executive letters and using specific correspondence management software.

The Grievance Settlement Board allowed the grievance, finding that the employer applied an overly stringent standard by requiring the grievor to have performed the exact tasks previously, rather than assessing whether she had the minimum competence to perform the core components after a period of familiarization.

The Board ordered the grievor placed in the position and made whole.

The Union sought production of documents related to a job competition.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the Employer to produce all arguably relevant documents in its possession to Union Counsel no later than thirty days prior to the next hearing date.

The Board also imposed a confidentiality order, directing that the documents be used only for the purposes of the hearing and that the grievor return them to Union Counsel upon conclusion of the proceedings.

The employer brought a motion to dismiss a province-wide union grievance on the basis that it was referred to arbitration approximately one month beyond the time stipulated under the collective agreement.

The union argued that the employer had waived any right to object to the tardy referral, given that seven years had elapsed and significant litigation events had occurred before the employer raised the objection.

The arbitrator agreed with the union, finding that the employer must be taken to have waived any reliance on the time limit.

The employer's objection was dismissed.

The union filed grievances on behalf of two employees regarding escort duty.

The parties agreed to resolve the grievances through a mediation-arbitration process under the collective agreement.

The arbitrator issued a decision without reasons, directing the employer to pay the grievors the equivalent of 12 and 24 hours' pay, respectively, at the applicable rates.

The decision was issued on a without-prejudice basis for any other proceedings.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of the grievor.

Following a hearing and review of documentary evidence, the Grievance Settlement Board ordered that the grievor be placed in a regular full-time Probation Officer vacancy arising in the Thunder Bay office within the next six months.

The union sought rulings on several issues regarding the grievor's reinstatement and compensation.

The arbitrator denied the grievor's claim for credit card interest, utility charges, and costs associated with cashing in an RRSP, finding that the collective agreement's interest provision comprehensively covered the issue.

The arbitrator ruled that the grievor should be reimbursed for any EI late payment penalties incurred by the employer.

Claims regarding premium payments during an interim unassigned period were deferred pending a future ruling on the appropriateness of the grievor's eventual assignment.

The employer was ordered to provide a detailed explanation of the grievor's T4 and retro pay allocation to address tax burden concerns.

In a grievance alleging unjust discipline and a poisoned work environment, the Union brought a motion for the disclosure of documents relating to a Workplace Discrimination and Harassment Prevention (WDHP) complaint filed by the grievor's supervisor against the same director.

The Employer opposed disclosure, arguing the documents constituted inadmissible similar fact evidence and were subject to a full and final settlement.

The Grievance Settlement Board granted the motion, holding that the documents were arguably relevant to the grievor's allegations of systemic discrimination and a poisoned work environment.

The Board distinguished between the threshold for disclosure and the stricter test for admissibility, which would be determined at a later stage.

The applicant, a correctional officer, filed a human rights application alleging racial discrimination and a poisoned work environment, including racist hate mail.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the substance of the application had already been appropriately dealt with by the Grievance Settlement Board (GSB).

The Tribunal dismissed the respondent's request, finding that the GSB proceeding dealt with earlier allegations from 2005-2009, whereas the current application concerned new allegations from April 2010 onwards.

The Tribunal directed the matter to proceed.

The union grieved the employer's decision to deny the grievor an interview for a Regional Program Officer position.

The employer screened applicants based on criteria derived from the job specifications, placing significant weight on computer skills and environmental knowledge.

The grievor scored 43%, below the 60% threshold required for an interview.

The arbitrator found that the employer's screening criteria and weighting were reasonable and consistent with the job duties.

Although the arbitrator adjusted the grievor's scores slightly upward for certain criteria, the revised score still fell below the threshold.

The grievance was dismissed.

The Union brought a motion seeking an order to add ten vacation days to previously negotiated Minutes of Settlement, alleging the Employer misrepresented its ability to grant the days during mediation.

The Grievor had transferred from the Ontario Public Service to the Canada Revenue Agency and believed the Employer falsely claimed it could not transfer extra vacation days.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the motion, finding it inappropriate to unilaterally impose a term that was expressly considered and rejected during mediation, especially where the Grievor had already received substantial financial compensation.

The Board also found insufficient evidence of intentional misrepresentation or bad faith by the Employer.

Three Correctional Officers filed grievances alleging violations of the Collective Agreement, including anti-union animus, after the Employer demanded they undergo an Independent Medical Evaluation.

At the hearing, it became apparent that the evidence would overlap with another matter involving the same parties before the same Vice-Chair.

With the agreement of counsel, the Vice-Chair ordered the matters consolidated to avoid hearing the cases separately.

The parties engaged in a mediation-arbitration regarding the termination grievance of the grievor.

The Vice-Chair directed that the grievor be reinstated to employment in accordance with terms to be negotiated by the parties, without precedent and prejudice.

The union brought a grievance seeking indemnification of the grievor's civil and criminal legal expenses arising from an incident on September 21, 2010, pursuant to article COR14 of the collective agreement.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the employer to reimburse the grievor for his legal costs upon the provision of receipts.

The order was made without precedential value.

The grievor, an Enforcement Service Representative at the Family Responsibility Office, was discharged for dishonesty on two occasions.

First, he misrepresented the circumstances surrounding criminal charges (fraud and breach of trust) discovered during a criminal record check, falsely claiming they arose from a misunderstanding over filing tax returns without written authorization.

Second, he requested a leave of absence ostensibly to care for his ill mother, but the leave coincided with his sentencing to 18 months in jail for the criminal charges.

The arbitrator found the grievor was dishonest in both instances, irreparably damaging the employment relationship, and upheld the discharge.

In a grievance arbitration concerning allegations of a poisoned work environment, the Grievance Settlement Board issued a consent order requiring the Union to provide particulars to the Employer by a specified date.

The union filed a grievance alleging the employer failed to make reasonable provisions for the grievor's health and safety, resulting in a workplace injury.

The grievance was filed approximately two years and nine months after the incident.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the grievance was untimely.

The arbitrator found that the time for filing began on the date of the injury, and there was no satisfactory explanation for the extreme delay.

The arbitrator declined to exercise discretion under section 48(16) of the Labour Relations Act to extend the time limit, and the grievance was dismissed.

The Union filed a grievance regarding the payment of shift premiums for 12.5-hour shifts at the Vanier facility.

The issue was whether employees were entitled to a prorated shift premium for the first and last 15 minutes of their shifts under the collective agreement, which provided a premium 'per hour for all hours worked'.

The Ministry argued that the language required employees to work a full hour to receive the premium.

The Grievance Settlement Board allowed the grievance, finding that the phrase 'per hour for all hours worked' clearly includes the concept of pro rata payment for partial hours worked.

The union requested a remedy for the employer's failure to produce documents as ordered by the Grievance Settlement Board.

The employer admitted non-compliance, citing limited resources devoted to settlement efforts.

The Board directed an Assistant Deputy Minister to ensure compliance by a specified deadline and to attend a subsequent hearing to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt if compliance was not achieved.

The union sought to arbitrate a dispute over a correctional officer's entitlement to legal indemnity for criminal charges that were later withdrawn.

The employer moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that a prior memorandum of settlement merely preserved the grievor's claim from a general release but did not confer jurisdiction.

Furthermore, the union failed to refer the subsequent grievance to arbitration within the collective agreement's time limits.

The employer's motion to dismiss was granted.