138 total
Arbitrator found parties reached a binding settlement and ordered it determinative of all outstanding issues.
The parties proceeded by expedited mediation/arbitration.
The Employer submitted that the parties had agreed to a negotiated settlement, while the Union presented the Grievor's concerns and sought a greater amount in damages.
The Arbitrator determined that the Union and the Employer had reached a binding settlement, which was accurately reflected in the written Minutes of Settlement prepared by the Employer.
The Arbitrator ruled that the Minutes of Settlement were in effect and determinative of all outstanding issues.
Employer ordered on consent to produce personnel file, log books, and policies to the union.
The union sought production of various documents, including the grievor's personnel file, log books, policies, and discipline records of other staff members.
On mutual consent of the parties, the arbitrator ordered the employer to produce the requested documents by a specified date.
Union withdrew human rights claims and put employer on notice for contempt over unproduced documents.
The union grieved alleged violations of the Occupational Health and Safety Act and workplace anti-violence provisions.
At the hearing, the union withdrew its human rights and collective agreement claims without prejudice.
The union also raised the employer's ongoing failure to comply with two previous Board orders requiring the production of investigation reports, occurrence reports, and notes from a retired employee.
The arbitrator noted the employer's duty to obtain and produce the arguably relevant notes.
The union put the employer on notice that continued non-compliance would result in a request for a show cause hearing for contempt.
Grievance dismissed after grievor submitted a fraudulent medical note to excuse his non-attendance.
The employer brought a motion to dismiss the grievance after the grievor failed to attend a hearing.
The arbitrator had previously ordered the grievance dismissed unless the grievor provided good and sufficient cause for his non-attendance by a specified deadline.
The grievor submitted an unsigned medical note past the deadline.
Upon inquiry, the union confirmed the purported doctor did not exist and did not work at the named hospital.
The arbitrator found the grievor failed to demonstrate good and sufficient cause and dismissed the grievance due to the late filing and the fraudulent nature of the medical document.
Employer ordered to produce investigation reports and notes following non-compliance with prior production order.
The Union sought a supplementary order, alleging the Employer failed to comply with a prior production order dated November 22, 2017.
The Arbitrator heard submissions and ordered the Employer to forthwith produce the complete Local Investigation Report, associated notes, notes of meetings with the grievor and the union, and any occurrence reports or complaint forms issued by staff against specific individuals.
Production of documents regarding other complaints against specific co-workers granted; request for unrelated complaints denied.
The Union sought production of documents in a grievance alleging that a male correctional officer was harassed and assaulted by a female co-worker and her husband.
The Union requested documents relating to complaints about other incidents not involving the grievor or the co-workers to show differential treatment based on gender, as well as documents relating to other complaints against the specific co-workers.
The Arbitrator denied the first request, finding the documents were not arguably relevant and would unduly extend the proceedings.
The Arbitrator granted the second request, finding the documents were arguably relevant to the Employer's knowledge and obligation to provide a harassment-free workplace.
Grievance conditionally dismissed after grievor failed to attend mediation and breached strict adjournment conditions.
The Employer brought a motion to dismiss the grievance after the grievor failed to attend a scheduled mediation and subsequently failed to fully comply with the conditions of an adjournment.
The arbitrator found that the grievor did not provide the required medical documentation from an addiction specialist confirming enrollment in a treatment plan on the earliest available date, nor did he provide the required status update.
Given the grievor's non-attendance and failure to comply with the strict conditions of the adjournment, the arbitrator ordered the grievance dismissed unless the grievor could demonstrate good and sufficient cause for his non-attendance by a specified deadline.
Employer breached collective agreement by unilaterally reducing starting salary; grievance allowed in part as continuing violation.
The Association filed a grievance on behalf of the Complainant alleging the Employer breached the collective agreement by reducing her starting salary from $68,000 to $63,482 one day after she signed her initial fixed-term contract, and failed to provide 16 weeks' notice of termination under the Employment Standards Act.
The Arbitrator dismissed the ESA notice claim, finding the Employer provided the required notice at the time of hiring.
The Arbitrator found the Employer breached the collective agreement by unilaterally reducing the salary without fresh consideration.
Although the grievance was filed outside the 30-day time limit, the Arbitrator held the breach was a continuing violation, entitling the Complainant to damages for the 30-day period prior to the filing of the grievance.
Arbitrator found employer's separate sign-in sheet for missed meal breaks violated minutes of settlement.
The union referred a grievance to arbitration regarding compensation for missed meal breaks, which was resolved by minutes of settlement.
The settlement required the employer to advise correctional officers to note missed breaks on their regular sign-in and out sheets.
The employer subsequently issued a memo directing officers to use a separate sign-in sheet in the Minimum Duty Sergeant's office.
The union argued this violated the settlement.
The arbitrator agreed, finding the settlement clearly required missed breaks to be recorded on the regular shift sign-in and out sheets.
Arbitrator issues directions to remedy Employer's delay in providing settlement lieu days.
The Union alleged that the Employer breached a Memorandum of Settlement by delaying the creation of a lieu bank for affected employees until August 2017.
The arbitrator issued directions allowing employees to apply lieu days to unpaid leave taken since the settlement date and permitting extensions for those unable to use their days by the deadline due to exceptional circumstances.
The arbitrator also clarified that employees on temporary assignment or secondment to another Ministry as of the settlement date are entitled to the lieu days if they return to the Ministry by December 31, 2018.
Adjournment granted on condition that the Complainant provide medical documentation of addiction treatment.
The Union requested an adjournment of a mediation scheduled for August 4, 2017.
The Employer agreed to the adjournment only with conditions.
The Arbitrator granted the adjournment on the condition that the Association provide medical documentation confirming the Complainant is following an addiction treatment plan, along with updates and a written undertaking from the Complainant to attend and participate in the proceedings.
Union permitted to replace disputed positions only if they became unavailable prior to its selection date.
The parties entered into a Memorandum of Settlement regarding the potential inclusion of 375 excluded positions into the bargaining unit.
The union selected 375 positions from a list of 8,000 provided by the employer.
Subsequently, the employer disclosed that approximately 32 of the selected positions had been eliminated, become vacant, or were otherwise problematic.
The union sought to select replacement positions to maintain the 375 count.
The arbitrator held that the list of disputed positions crystallized on the date the union made its selection.
The union was permitted to select replacements only for positions that became unavailable prior to its selection date, but not for those that changed due to the normal ebb and flow of the workplace after the selection was made.
Job competition grievance dismissed; complainant's interpersonal skills were not relatively equal to the successful applicant's.
The Association filed a job competition grievance on behalf of the complainant, a Financial Analyst, alleging that the employer violated the collective agreement by awarding a permanent position to a non-bargaining unit applicant.
The collective agreement required preference to be given to the bargaining unit applicant where qualifications and ability were relatively equal.
The arbitrator found that while both candidates had excellent technical skills, the successful applicant possessed significantly better interpersonal, communication, and strategic skills, which were essential requirements of the position.
The grievance was dismissed.
Correctional officers' work refusal over missing metal plate was unlawful as danger was inherent.
The Union filed grievances challenging the Employer's decision to withhold pay and impose discipline on correctional officers who engaged in a work refusal at the Hamilton-Wentworth Detention Centre.
The work refusal was triggered by a missing metal electrical cover plate, which the officers feared could be weaponized.
The officers refused to work unless they were permitted to wear protective vests and a Level 2 search of the entire institution was conducted.
The Ministry of Labour determined that the officers did not have the right to refuse work under section 43 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act.
The Arbitrator agreed, finding that the danger of homemade weapons is inherent in a correctional officer's work and that the Employer's search protocol and vest policy were normal conditions of employment.
The Arbitrator also dismissed the Union's claims that the Employer's actions constituted a reprisal or a lock-out, concluding that the Employer was justified in withholding pay and imposing discipline for the unlawful work refusal.
Grievor reinstated to employment and name ordered redacted from published OIPRD decision.
The Association grieved the termination of the Complainant's employment at the Office of the Independent Police Review Director (OIPRD).
Based on the submissions of the parties, the Grievance Settlement Board ordered that the Complainant be reinstated to employment effective November 14, 2014.
The Board further ordered the OIPRD to redact the Complainant's name to reflect 'CSP' in a specific decision posted on its website.
Judicial review dismissed; duty to accommodate does not require employer to accept excessive, unpredictable absenteeism.
The applicant union sought judicial review of a Grievance Settlement Board decision finding that the respondent Ministry did not breach its duty to accommodate an employee terminated for innocent absenteeism.
The employee suffered from a chronic back condition causing unpredictable and excessive absenteeism.
The union argued the duty to accommodate included allowing the employee not to work when unable.
The Divisional Court held the standard of review was reasonableness and upheld the Board's decision, stating the duty to accommodate is intended to allow employees to fulfill their duties, not to completely alter the essence of the employment contract by accepting excessive absenteeism.
Employer's suspension of union president and abuse of investigation process found to be motivated by anti-union animus.
The union grieved the employer's treatment of the local union president, who was suspended with pay for three months pending an investigation into vague allegations of bullying and harassment.
The union alleged the employer's actions, including the suspension, the initiation of a formal investigation, and the removal of a posting from the union bulletin board, were motivated by anti-union animus.
The Grievance Settlement Board found that the employer acted in bad faith, deliberately provoked the union, and used the investigation process to improperly target the union president.
The Board declared violations of the collective agreement and the Labour Relations Act, ordered the removal of a non-disciplinary letter from the grievor's file, directed a workplace posting, and awarded $25,000 in compensatory damages.
Grievance dismissed; collective agreement appendix regarding September 1 start date does not apply to seasonal employees.
The union grieved that the employer violated the collective agreement by starting the school year for seasonal Residential Counsellors on September 3, 2015, instead of September 1.
The parties proceeded by way of an agreed statement of facts.
The union argued that Appendix UN6 mandated a September 1 start date.
The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that Appendix UN6 does not apply to seasonal employees as it is not listed in Article 32.31 of the collective agreement.
Furthermore, the Board held that the union's interpretation of the language as mandatory was inconsistent with the historical application and the flexibility inherent in the provision.
Request for written hearing as medical accommodation denied to preserve respondent's right to cross-examination.
The applicant requested that her human rights hearing be conducted in writing as an accommodation for health reasons.
The respondent objected, arguing it would be deprived of the opportunity to cross-examine the applicant on disputed factual issues.
The Tribunal denied the request for a written hearing, finding that proceeding without oral testimony would violate the Human Rights Code, the Tribunal's Rules, and procedural fairness.
The in-person hearing was adjourned until the applicant is medically cleared to participate.
Two human rights applications involving the same parties and overlapping facts consolidated.
The applicant filed two separate human rights applications against the same respondent.
The Tribunal directed the parties to make submissions on whether the applications should be consolidated.
The respondent did not object, and the applicant made no submissions.
Applying the factors from Lattey v. Canadian Pacific Railway, the Tribunal ordered the applications consolidated to avoid a multiplicity of proceedings, noting the factual overlap and lack of prejudice.
A separate request by the respondent to dismiss one of the applications under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code was deferred to the hearing adjudicator.
