138 total
Employer ordered to pay settlement funds with interest after missing deadline, but damages denied.
The union alleged the employer breached Minutes of Settlement by failing to pay the grievor within the agreed 60-day timeframe.
The union requested an order declaring the breach, directing immediate payment with interest, and awarding $1,000 in damages for the breach.
The employer admitted the late payment but opposed the $1,000 damages claim, arguing the breach was a technical error without bad faith.
The Vice-Chair found the employer breached the settlement and ordered immediate payment with interest, but declined to award the $1,000 damages, noting it was too harsh for a first-time request while putting the employer on notice for future breaches.
Grievance dismissed; surplus employee lacked present ability to perform core duties of displacement position without training.
The grievor's position was declared surplus, and she sought to exercise her displacement rights under the collective agreement to bump into an Assessment Officer position.
The employer denied the displacement, arguing she was not qualified to perform the core duties of the role, specifically the independent adjudication of complex surgical claims.
The Grievance Settlement Board applied the established test requiring a surplus employee to demonstrate the present ability to perform all major components of the job at a minimum level of competence without a training period.
The Board found that while the grievor had extensive experience as a Claims Assessor, the Assessment Officer role required specialized skills and months of on-the-job training to adjudicate complex claims independently.
As the grievor could not perform this core function without training, the grievance was dismissed.
Hearsay transcript of youth's interview ruled inadmissible for truth of contents due to lack of reliability.
During a grievance arbitration regarding the termination of a Youth Officer for alleged excessive use of force, the employer sought to introduce a transcript of the youth's interview with an investigator for the truth of its contents.
The youth had been summonsed but failed to attend the hearing.
The arbitrator held that the transcript was hearsay and did not meet the Supreme Court of Canada's test for necessity and threshold reliability under Khelawon.
The transcript was ruled admissible only to show the basis of the employer's decision-making, not for the truth of its contents.
Ministry's motion to dismiss excessive workload grievances for lack of a prima facie case denied.
The Ministry brought a preliminary motion arguing that the Union's grievances regarding excessive workload for ODSP Caseworkers failed to make out a prima facie case for a breach of the health and safety provision of the collective agreement.
The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the motion, finding that the Union's particulars, if assumed to be true, were capable of supporting the conclusion that the workload was excessive and constituted a breach of the collective agreement.
Grievance dismissed; Memorandum of Settlement did not preclude the employer from appealing a WSIB decision.
The Union filed a grievance alleging that the Employer breached a Memorandum of Settlement (MOS) by appealing a WSIB decision regarding the grievor's continued loss of earnings.
The MOS settled all issues relating to the grievor's employment and termination, but preserved the grievor's rights under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997.
The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the MOS was clear and unambiguous.
While the MOS prevented the grievor from seeking re-employment, it explicitly allowed either party to take a position on any other matter under the WSIA, including the employer's right to appeal the loss of earnings claim.
Grievances ordered to be heard consecutively; employer directed to produce specific disciplinary records.
In an interim decision regarding a grievance arbitration for termination and discrimination, the Grievance Settlement Board ruled on procedural and production issues.
The Board ordered that the termination and discrimination grievances be heard consecutively rather than concurrently to avoid delaying the termination grievance.
The Board also ordered the employer to produce disciplinary records for specific individuals particularized by the union in support of its differential treatment claim, and directed the union to provide further particulars if additional production was sought.
Grievance dismissed; termination for innocent absenteeism justified where disabled employee unable to fulfill basic employment obligations.
The grievor, a Youth Services Officer, was terminated for innocent absenteeism due to a chronic degenerative back condition.
He had used 310 sick days between 2009 and July 2013.
The union argued that the employer failed to accommodate his disability to the point of undue hardship by not accepting his above-average absenteeism.
The Grievance Settlement Board found that the absenteeism was excessive and likely to continue.
Applying the Supreme Court's decision in Hydro-Quebec, the Board held that the duty to accommodate does not require an employer to completely alter the essence of the employment contract, which is the performance of work in exchange for remuneration.
The grievance was dismissed.
Union ordered to provide particulars and disclosure by a specified date or face dismissal of grievance.
The employer requested an order for particulars and disclosure regarding a group grievance filed by Probation and Parole Officers.
The union requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing to obtain the necessary information.
The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the union to provide particulars and make disclosure by March 20, 2015, failing which the grievance would be dismissed.
Union ordered to provide further and better particulars regarding workplace harassment allegations.
The employer brought a motion for further and better particulars regarding three grievances alleging harassment by coworkers and management.
The employer argued that two paragraphs in the union's particulars were too vague.
The Grievance Settlement Board agreed, finding that the paragraphs lacked the required degree of granularity.
The union was ordered to provide further and better particulars within 20 business days.
Human rights application deferred pending completion of concurrent grievance and arbitration process.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.
The respondents requested that the application be deferred because the applicant had concurrent grievances under a collective agreement dealing with the same facts and human rights issues.
The Tribunal found that deferring the application pending the completion of the grievance and arbitration process was the most fair, just, and expeditious way to proceed, avoiding duplication of proceedings and the risk of inconsistent results.
The application was deferred.
Employer's preliminary objection granted; Union precluded from raising new claims outside the scope of the original grievances.
The Ministry of Transportation raised a preliminary objection to the Union's attempt to introduce evidence regarding purported job re-assignment commitments made to the grievor in 2010 and 2011.
The grievances, filed in September 2012, alleged that the Employer failed to properly redeploy or accommodate the grievor following a surplus notice in April 2012.
The Grievance Settlement Board upheld the Ministry's objection, finding that the new claim was fundamentally different from the original grievances and could not be reasonably construed as an inherent part of them, even when reading the grievance language broadly.
The Union was directed that it could not litigate the issue of the 2010 and 2011 commitments as part of the present grievances.
Grievance consolidated with a substantially similar matter before another Vice Chair.
The parties agreed that the issues in this grievance were substantially similar to those in another matter before Vice Chair Herlich.
The Grievance Settlement Board directed that the matter be consolidated with the other matter, with the understanding that it would be given hearing and mediation priority.
Grievance denied; 10-day suspension and transfer upheld for showing a co-worker's naked photograph.
The grievor, a correctional officer, grieved a 10-day suspension and a non-disciplinary transfer imposed after he allegedly showed a naked photograph of a female co-worker to another employee.
The union argued the grievor showed a picture of a different woman and that the co-worker fabricated the story.
The arbitrator resolved the factual dispute in favour of the employer, finding the co-worker's evidence more credible and that the grievor did show the complainant's picture.
The grievance was denied, upholding the suspension and transfer.
Employer violated collective agreement by improperly exercising discretion to require medical certificates for short sick leaves.
The union filed grievances on behalf of two employees who were required by the employer to provide medical certificates for sick leave absences of less than five days.
The employer argued it had a reasonable suspicion of sick leave abuse based on a pattern of absences.
The Grievance Settlement Board found that while the employer has the discretion to require medical certificates for short absences where abuse is suspected, it failed to properly exercise that discretion.
The employer did not meaningfully consider the individual circumstances of the grievors or seek their input before making the decision.
The Board upheld the grievances, declaring that the employer violated the collective agreement by improperly exercising its discretion and by withholding sick pay pending receipt of the medical certificates.
Union's request for an adjournment of the hearing granted over employer's opposition.
The union sought an adjournment of the hearing, which the employer opposed.
The Vice-Chair granted the adjournment on the condition that the hearing continue on May 28, 2014.
Employer failed to properly exercise management discretion in denying nursing allowance; matter remitted for reconsideration.
The union filed grievances on behalf of four registered nurses who were denied an N 3 nursing allowance by the employer.
The collective agreement provided that the allowance may be paid at the discretion of management.
The Grievance Settlement Board found that the employer failed to properly exercise its discretion because the decision-maker did not give due consideration to the merits of each individual request, failed to consider all relevant facts, and made incorrect assumptions without conducting a full inquiry.
The matter was remitted back to the employer for a proper exercise of discretion.
Employer ordered to produce documents subject to confidentiality restrictions pending further submissions.
The Union requested document production in a grievance arbitration.
The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the Employer to produce the requested documents subject to a confidentiality restriction, and directed the Union to provide particulars.
The Board noted it would hear further submissions on confidentiality terms at the next hearing date.
Dismissal of correctional manager for excessive force upheld, but 24 months' compensation awarded in lieu of reinstatement.
The complainant, an Operational Manager at a detention centre, was dismissed for cause following three incidents, including failing to report a subordinate's excessive use of force and personally using excessive force by kicking a meal hatch on an inmate's arm.
The Public Service Grievance Board found that while the complainant's serious lapses in judgment justified discipline and irreparably damaged the employment relationship, dismissal without any compensation was too severe given his long, exemplary service and the difficult job market.
Because the complainant had applied force to a vulnerable person, the Board was statutorily barred from reinstating him to his former position.
The Board awarded compensation in lieu of reinstatement equivalent to 24 months' wages and benefits.
Motion to sever grievances granted; efficiency favoured hearing mileage claim separately from taxable benefit claims.
The employer sought to sever the Papple grievance from the Malboeuf and group grievances, arguing it should be heard first.
The union submitted all three should be heard together.
The Board found that while all grievances broadly raised the issue of whether travel was personal or business, the legal issues and required interpretations differed significantly.
The Board concluded that efficiency favoured the employer's position and ordered the Papple grievance to be heard first.
Grievance over overtime distribution dismissed; geographically separate employees do not constitute a single local workplace.
The union grieved the employer's failure to distribute overtime equally among Electronic Supervision Resource Officers (ESROs) and Monitoring Centre Officers (MCOs), alleging a breach of the collective agreement.
The employer had centralized shift work and overtime at a new monitoring centre in Mississauga, while ESROs continued to work day shifts at various local probation offices.
The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that the collective agreement only required fair distribution of overtime within a 'local workplace.' Because the ESROs and MCOs worked in different physical locations, they did not constitute a single local workplace, and the employer's reorganization of work was a valid exercise of management rights.
