Erin Buchner

In a grievance arbitration concerning the termination of a correctional officer, the parties requested an order to ensure readiness for the next hearing date after unsuccessful mediation efforts.

The Arbitrator issued a production order directing the Union to provide particulars by January 15, 2024, and both parties to exchange any outstanding production by January 30, 2024.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of a worker member of the joint health and safety committee, claiming he was entitled to be paid for five hours to write a workplace inspection report and half an hour for preparation time.

The employer had authorized and paid for two hours to write the report.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that the Occupational Health and Safety Act only entitles a worker member to time that is objectively necessary to identify hazards and inform the committee.

The grievor's request for five hours to draft recommendations usurped the role of the committee as a whole and was not necessary under the Act.

The request for preparation time was also dismissed as unnecessary or de minimis.

The arbitrator issued case management directions for three grievances (two individual, one group) referred under the Central Collective Agreement.

The directions set timelines for providing particulars, scheduling a one-day hearing, and limiting the scope and duration of oral evidence regarding whether other employees were permitted to conduct COVID-19 rapid tests at the workplace.

The Employer brought a preliminary motion regarding the available remedies in a termination grievance of a correctional officer.

The grievor had pled guilty to assault and received a conditional discharge for an incident involving an inmate.

The Employer argued that under the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act, the criminal disposition constituted conclusive evidence of excessive use of force, limiting the arbitrator's jurisdiction to reinstate the grievor to a position outside the secure part of a facility.

The Union argued the assault charge did not necessarily equate to excessive force under the Act and raised mitigating medical factors.

The Arbitrator upheld the Employer's motion, finding the guilty plea and conditional discharge triggered the mandatory provisions of the Act, precluding relitigation of the excessive force allegations and limiting remedial jurisdiction.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment because of disability.

The respondent railway company sought dismissal on the basis that its operations fall under federal jurisdiction.

The Tribunal found that although the respondent operates an intraprovincial short line railway, it is owned by a company that operates federally-regulated railways.

By operation of s. 88(3) of the Canada Transportation Act and s. 92(10)(c) of the Constitution Act, 1867, the respondent is declared to be a work for the general advantage of Canada.

The Application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant, an atheist, refused a modified work assignment monitoring a Salvation Army kettle, alleging it conflicted with her religious beliefs.

A WSIB Appeals Resolution Officer determined the work was suitable and denied her loss of earnings benefits, finding the refusal was for personal reasons not requiring accommodation under the Human Rights Code.

The applicant then sought to reactivate her human rights application.

The Tribunal dismissed the application under section 45.1 of the Code, finding that the WSIB proceeding had concurrent jurisdiction, dealt with essentially the same issue, and appropriately dealt with the substance of the application without unfairness.

The applicant, an injured worker and self-identified atheist, alleged discrimination on the grounds of disability and creed after her employer required her to participate in the Salvation Army Kettle Campaign as part of a modified return to work program.

When she objected, the WSIB determined she would lose her loss of earnings benefits if she refused the assignment.

The WSIB requested that the human rights application be dismissed or deferred pending the applicant's objection to the WSIB Appeals Branch.

The Tribunal deferred the application until the WSIB Appeals Resolution Officer determines the objection, noting significant overlap in the issues.

The applicant filed human rights applications alleging discriminatory discipline and discharge.

He had previously grieved his discipline and discharge under a collective agreement.

The arbitrator found just cause for discipline and no violation of the Human Rights Code.

The respondents requested dismissal of the human rights applications under s. 45.1 of the Code.

The Tribunal held that the arbitrator's finding of just cause implicitly incorporated a finding that the discipline did not violate the Code, and that the arbitrator had explicitly ruled on the Code issues.

Applying the Supreme Court's decision in Figliola, the Tribunal dismissed the applications to prevent relitigation, except for two allegations unrelated to the discipline.