Fateh Salim

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.

In an interim award regarding a grievance over Video Display Terminal (VDT) provisions in the collective agreement, the union brought a motion for the production of computer system data to establish the 'continuous' nature of VDT use by correctional officers.

The employer resisted, arguing the request was untimely, not arguably relevant, and prejudicial due to security concerns and volume.

The Grievance Settlement Board granted the union's motion, finding the data arguably relevant and the request timely.

To address the employer's security and volume concerns, the Board reduced the requested time frame to seven days and imposed strict confidentiality conditions on the disclosure.

The Employer raised a preliminary objection that the 10 grievances filed by Tax Auditors were classification grievances, over which the Grievance Settlement Board lacks jurisdiction under s. 52.1 of CECBA.

The Union argued they were temporary assignment grievances.

The Vice-Chair reviewed the wording of the grievances and found that 9 of the 10 explicitly sought a classification change and were therefore outside the Board's jurisdiction.

One grievance, which only sought compensation for the time spent performing higher-level duties, was allowed to proceed as a temporary assignment grievance.

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.

Following the August 2003 widespread power outage and subsequent provincial emergency, numerous grievances were filed regarding employee compensation and leave credits.

The parties agreed to a consent award establishing that the period was not a strike, lockout, or public holiday, and that employees requested not to report to work would be paid.

The Vice-Chair issued a decision dismissing several specific individual grievances from the Ministry of Finance and Ministry of Natural Resources without written reasons, as requested by the parties, and corrected a previous decision regarding one employee's vacation entitlement.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued an interim decision on consent setting out procedural directions for a union grievance.

The directions included timelines for the exchange of particulars and disclosure, a process for resolving disputes via teleconference, and scheduling a continuation of the hearing at the Central East Institution to include opening statements and a site view.

The union filed multiple grievances arising from the August 2003 widespread power outage and subsequent provincial emergency.

The parties agreed to a consent award establishing that the period was not a strike, lockout, or public holiday, and that employees requested not to report to work would be paid.

The arbitrator resolved several individual disputes regarding vacation credits and sick leave, dismissing the majority of the grievances but upholding a few, ordering days to be taken as vacation or restored to sick leave banks.

The grievor, a tax auditor, submitted expense claims for lunches exceeding the employer's $9.25 unreceipted maximum.

The employer reimbursed $9.25 for each meal and denied the excess, citing a lack of extenuating circumstances or explanations from the grievor.

The union grieved, arguing the employer's requirement for explanations for any amount over $9.25 was an arbitrary exercise of management discretion under the collective agreement.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievances, finding that the employer did not act arbitrarily.

The employer was entitled to rely on its knowledge that reasonable meals could be purchased for $9.25 or less in the relevant localities, especially since the grievor failed to provide any explanations for the higher costs when submitting his claims.

The parties attended a hearing before the Grievance Settlement Board and made a joint submission asserting that there was no dispute between them.

Based on this submission, the Vice-Chair found that the Board lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the grievances.

More than 100 tax auditors grieved the employer's refusal to reimburse their professional membership dues (CGA, CA, CMA).

The union argued that under a government-wide policy, the employer was required to reimburse the dues because the memberships were beneficial to the ministry, and that the refusal was an unreasonable exercise of management rights.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that the grievances were not arbitrable because the collective agreement was silent on the reimbursement of professional dues, and the employer's policy did not constitute an undertaking that created enforceable rights under the agreement.

In the alternative, the Board found that the union failed to prove that the employer's decision not to reimburse the dues was unreasonable, as there was insufficient evidence that maintaining the memberships provided a benefit to the ministry that outweighed the cost of reimbursement.

The grievances were dismissed.

The union filed a grievance alleging that the employer violated the Ontario Human Rights Code by denying the grievor the ability to apply and work for the Ontario Public Service during his pension bridging.

The matter was dealt with by written submissions.

The employer took the position that there was no violation of the collective agreement or the Code, and the union did not disagree.

Finding no indication of discriminatory treatment, the Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance.

The union grieved the employer's refusal to reimburse tax auditors for professional membership dues (CA, CMA, CGA).

During the arbitration proceedings, both parties complained about the other's approach to particulars and document production.

The Vice-Chair issued a comprehensive order requiring both parties to deliver written particulars and produce relevant documents.

The Vice-Chair also directed the employer to bring documents regarding the reimbursement of membership dues for employees in other ministries to the next hearing, deferring a final decision on their production.

The union filed grievances regarding the employer's policy on reimbursement of professional dues.

At a hearing, the Grievance Settlement Board ordered the union to provide particulars of its allegations, including claims that the employer benefits from the grievors' professional designations and that the employer acted arbitrarily or in bad faith.

The Board also directed the employer to make reasonable efforts to produce documents related to a 'Taxable Benefits FAQ' concerning the reimbursement of professional fees.

The union referred a grievance regarding the cancellation of a job competition to arbitration nearly 15 months after the employer's stage two response.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the referral was untimely under Article 22.4 of the collective agreement.

The Grievance Settlement Board upheld the objection, finding that the collective agreement deemed the grievance withdrawn if not processed within the prescribed time, and the Board had no jurisdiction to extend the time limit.

The grievance was dismissed as inarbitrable.

The employer brought a preliminary motion objecting to the Grievance Settlement Board's jurisdiction to award monetary damages to a correctional officer who was assaulted by inmates.

The employer argued that the damages arose from a workplace accident and were exclusively compensable under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act (WSIA).

The Board held that it lacked jurisdiction to award damages for the accident itself, as those were covered by WSIA.

However, the Board found it had jurisdiction to hear claims regarding the employer's conduct after the assault and to award non-monetary remedies for breaches of the collective agreement's health and safety provisions, provided those claims were not compensable under WSIA.

The Board also ruled it had no jurisdiction to award punitive damages.

The Employer requested an order dismissing the grievance after the Union failed to comply with a prior interim decision requiring it to provide full particulars, including dates, of alleged discriminatory conduct regarding the enforcement of a travel policy.

The Vice-Chair found that the Union's response did not comply with the order, as it failed to provide dates and detailed information for each allegation.

Concluding that giving the Union more time would make a mockery of the prior order, the Vice-Chair dismissed the grievance.

The respondents in a human rights complaint regarding accessible transit services brought motions for disclosure and particulars prior to filing their responding pleadings.

The Board of Inquiry held that the motions were not premature, as the rules permit such requests at any stage of the proceeding.

The Board ordered the Commission to provide particulars regarding alleged physical barriers to transit access and to disclose a Transit Access Survey and its responses, finding them arguably relevant to the respondents' undue hardship defence.

However, the Board declined to order the complainants to produce medical reports or further particulars of certain other allegations at the pleadings stage, finding that sufficient information had been provided to enable the respondents to plead.

During a grievance hearing alleging constructive dismissal and anti-union animus, the union sought to introduce evidence concerning 17 prior grievances that had been fully and finally settled three years earlier.

The employer objected, arguing the settlement precluded re-litigating those matters.

The Grievance Settlement Board sustained the employer's objection, finding that the broad language of the settlement agreement precluded relying on the settled matters to support an existing grievance.

Furthermore, the Board held that the passage of over four years since the prior events significantly reduced their probative value, and balancing the equities favoured excluding the evidence to respect the finality of settlements.

The grievor, a Senior Field Auditor and Certified Management Accountant, filed a grievance claiming the Ministry was responsible for paying his professional dues to the Society of Management Accountants of Ontario.

The employer submitted that payment was not required by the collective agreement or its policy, as maintaining the credential was not necessary for the effective performance of his duties.

The union agreed with the employer's submissions.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding no dispute between the parties and therefore no jurisdiction.