138 total
Employer breached collective agreement by scheduling mandatory training on regular days off without paying overtime.
The Union filed grievances alleging the Employer violated the collective agreement and Compressed Work Week Agreements by requiring correctional officers to attend mandatory training on their regular days off (RDOs) and paying them at straight time rates.
The Arbitrator found that mandatory training constitutes work time.
The Employer breached the collective agreement by failing to provide two consecutive days off and by failing to pay overtime rates for work performed on scheduled days off.
The grievances were upheld, and the Employer was directed to compensate affected employees.
Employer's preliminary motion dismissed; grievor's request for accommodation did not constitute declining an offer of re-employment.
The Employer brought a preliminary motion asserting that the grievor, a seasonal employee, lost his seniority under the collective agreement by declining an offer of re-employment when his position was relocated.
The grievor had suffered a severe medical condition and requested accommodation, but the Employer refused to provide the necessary medical assessment forms until he accepted the relocated position.
The Arbitrator dismissed the motion, finding that the grievor's actions, including his request for accommodation and filing of a grievance, demonstrated an intent to maintain employment rather than decline the offer.
Grievance dismissed; termination of correctional officer upheld for time theft and failing to cooperate with investigation.
The grievor, a Correctional Officer, was terminated for multiple instances of misconduct, including time theft, failing to disclose a criminal charge, and failing to cooperate with a Ministry of Correctional Services Act Section 22 investigation.
The Union grieved the termination, arguing the investigations were discriminatory and the penalty excessive.
The Arbitrator found that the Employer established just cause for discipline on several serious allegations, particularly the time theft, failure to disclose the criminal charge, and failure to cooperate with the investigation.
The Arbitrator concluded that the grievor's dishonest behaviour constituted a breach of trust that irreparably damaged the employment relationship, and dismissed the grievance.
Arbitrator orders mutual pre-hearing production, restricting access to grievor's medical records to protect privacy.
In a grievance concerning the duty to accommodate, both parties sought pre-hearing production of documents.
The Union requested additional particulars regarding the Employer's search for modified work, including regular and fixed-term positions.
The Employer requested the grievor's medical records and sought to share them with the grievor's former manager.
The Arbitrator ordered the Employer to produce the requested job search particulars, finding them arguably relevant to the merits.
The Arbitrator also ordered the Union to produce the medical records but restricted access to Employer counsel and two advisors to balance the grievor's privacy interests with the Employer's right to a fair hearing.
Procedural directions issued for consolidated grievances regarding surveillance cameras at correctional facilities.
The Grievance Settlement Board held a case management session regarding consolidated grievances over the use of surveillance cameras at correctional facilities.
The Arbitrator issued procedural directions, including the selection of reference grievances, the use of written declarations in lieu of oral evidence in chief, timelines for filing declarations, and limits on oral evidence and cross-examination.
Grievance dismissed; collective agreement did not entitle seasonal employees to a 40-hour work week.
The union grieved that the employer violated the collective agreement by scheduling seasonal employees for 36.25 hours per week instead of 40 hours.
The union argued that the definition of 'seasonal employee' and the salary schedule entitled them to 40 hours.
The arbitrator found that the collective agreement explicitly excluded seasonal employees from the 40-hour work week provision and that the words 'as applicable' meant the hours depended on individual employment contracts.
The grievance was dismissed.
Employer's motion for production of grievor's clinical notes granted subject to confidentiality conditions.
In a grievance alleging failure to accommodate, the employer brought a motion for the production of the clinical notes of the grievor's treating medical professionals.
The union opposed the request, arguing the notes were not relevant and the request was overly broad.
The arbitrator granted the employer's motion, finding that by relying on the medical reports, the union opened the door to the production of the underlying clinical notes.
The arbitrator ordered the production of the relevant clinical notes subject to strict confidentiality conditions.
Grievances dismissed; cleaning work was not exclusive to the bargaining unit and contractor use was de minimis.
The Union filed grievances alleging that the Employer violated the collective agreement by failing to post Cleaner 2 positions at the Toronto East Detention Centre and by using an external contractor to perform cleaning work.
The arbitrator found that cleaning work at the facility had historically been performed by inmates, not bargaining unit members, meaning the work was not exclusive to the bargaining unit.
Furthermore, the minor amount of cleaning work performed by the external contractor was captured by the de minimis principle.
The grievances were dismissed.
Arbitrator ordered employer to identify accommodated positions and both parties to exchange particulars.
The parties made submissions regarding the process for a timely and efficient hearing of the grievance.
The arbitrator ordered the employer to identify suitable accommodated positions for the grievor based on a functional abilities evaluation and to provide particulars of its search efforts.
The union was ordered to provide particulars regarding the earliest date the grievor could return to work.
Grievance dismissed; employer did not breach duty to accommodate where employee provided insufficient medical information.
The union filed a grievance alleging the employer breached its duty to accommodate the grievor's disability.
The grievor provided a doctor's note stating she was unable to regularly make it to work prior to 9 a.m. due to ongoing medical issues.
The employer complied with the scheduling recommendation but repeatedly sought additional medical information to understand the nature of the restrictions.
After almost two years of unsuccessful attempts to obtain this information, the employer required the grievor to attend work at her regularly scheduled time.
The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that the medical information provided was insufficient to trigger the duty to accommodate and that the employer's requests for additional information were reasonable.
Motion to consolidate two new grievances with six existing grievances granted due to factual linkage.
The union sought to consolidate two new grievances with six previously consolidated grievances filed by the same grievor.
The existing grievances alleged that the employer used performance coaching sessions to target the grievor for intimidation and harassment.
The new grievances alleged that the employer required the grievor to attend coaching sessions in person contrary to a commitment to conduct them via email.
The employer objected to consolidation, arguing the new grievances raised different issues and involved a different manager.
The Arbitrator granted the consolidation, finding that the union alleged the requirement for in-person sessions was part of the same pattern of intimidation and harassment, making it more efficient to hear all grievances together.
Particulars predating the accommodation process struck for irrelevance in workplace harassment grievance.
In a grievance alleging workplace harassment during an accommodation process, the Employer sought to strike particulars relating to events that predated the 2017 accommodation efforts.
The Arbitrator found that the earlier events involved different issues and different management personnel, making them irrelevant to whether the accommodation process itself constituted a course of conduct amounting to harassment.
The Union's allegations regarding events prior to 2017 were struck.
Employer directed to reimburse travel expenses incurred prior to signing of Minutes of Settlement.
The parties disputed the interpretation of Minutes of Settlement regarding the grievor's entitlement to reimbursement for travel expenses incurred prior to the settlement.
The Association argued the expenses were not addressed in the settlement, while the Employer argued the settlement resolved all outstanding issues.
The Arbitrator directed the Employer to reimburse the grievor $1445.95 for travel expenses.
Employer ordered to pay $6,500 for harassment; employee ordered to repay disputed salary overpayment.
The Association filed a grievance alleging a breach of the Respectful Workplace Policy, workplace discrimination and harassment, and a dispute over the complainant's salary during temporary assignments.
The Arbitrator ordered the Employer to pay the complainant $6,500 in general damages for the harassment and discrimination allegations.
The Arbitrator also ordered the complainant to repay approximately $5,400 to $5,500 in disputed salary received during a temporary assignment, while finding the Employer was not entitled to repayment for a subsequent period.
Motion to strike particulars predating the grievance by more than three years granted in part.
The Employer brought a motion to strike many of the Union's particulars on the basis that they predated the grievance by more than three years or lacked sufficient particularity.
The grievance alleged failure to accommodate and harassment.
The Arbitrator applied the 'three year rule' guideline for harassment cases, finding that the events predating 2017 were not relevant to proving that the events post-dating 2017 constituted harassment, as they related to different issues and involved different individuals.
The Arbitrator struck the particulars predating 2017, but allowed the Union an opportunity to make further submissions regarding the relevance of particulars from October 2014 to February 2017.
Grievance dismissed as further particulars failed to establish a breach of the duty to accommodate.
The union filed a grievance alleging the employer failed to accommodate the grievor's disability with respect to her workload.
Following a prior decision directing the union to provide further particulars of specific accommodation requests that were denied, the union submitted further particulars.
The arbitrator found that the employer had complied with all medically supported accommodation requests and that the new particulars did not establish a breach of the duty to accommodate.
A new allegation regarding environmental sensitivities was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as it was unrelated to the workload grievance.
Four individual workload grievances dismissed as barred by prior settlement; further particulars ordered for accommodation claim.
The employer sought the preliminary dismissal of five individual grievances advanced by the union, arguing they were barred by a prior memorandum of settlement that resolved a union grievance concerning excessive workloads and the implementation of a new software system.
The arbitrator reviewed the particulars of each grievance to determine if they raised materially the same issues as the settled union grievance.
Four of the grievances were dismissed as they were either abandoned, raised identical workload issues, or were derivative of the settled issues.
The fifth grievance was dismissed with respect to workload and stress claims, but the union was directed to provide further particulars regarding a specific failure to accommodate claim.
Employer permitted to rely on new allegations in discharge grievance subject to procedural conditions.
In a discharge grievance, the employer sought to rely on new allegations that were not part of the original grounds for termination.
The arbitrator issued a bottom-line decision allowing the employer to rely on the new allegations, subject to specific procedural conditions.
The employer's case in chief must be divided into two parts, completing the evidence on the original allegations before calling evidence on the new ones.
The employer was also ordered to provide full particulars of the new allegations prior to commencing that portion of its case.
Parties resolved LTIP appeal on consent, granting own-occupation benefits for a specified period.
The union appealed the denial of Long Term Disability Benefits for the grievor.
The parties reached an agreement at the hearing to resolve the claim.
They agreed the claimant was totally disabled from the essential duties of her own occupation and would receive LTIP own-occupation benefits from July 15, 2013, to July 14, 2015.
The claimant will obtain additional medical documentation for the insurer's consideration of the any-occupation period, retaining the right to appeal if denied.
Employer ordered to produce arguably relevant documents pertaining to the grievor's discipline.
The Union sought an order for the production of documents related to three grievances concerning the discipline of the grievor.
Following a teleconference, the Arbitrator ordered the Employer to disclose and produce any and all arguably relevant documents pertaining to the discipline by September 18, 2018.
