138 total
Board lacks jurisdiction to extend time limits for referral to arbitration under collective agreement.
In an interim decision regarding a discharge grievance, the employer raised a preliminary objection that the Grievance Settlement Board lacked jurisdiction to extend the time limits for referring the grievance to arbitration.
The union argued that section 48(16) of the Labour Relations Act permitted the extension.
The Vice-Chair analyzed the collective agreement's language and structure, concluding that the referral to arbitration was distinct from the grievance procedure.
Consequently, following established jurisprudence, the Board held it had no jurisdiction under section 48(16) to extend the time limits for referral to arbitration, and upheld the employer's objection.
Board ordered schedule for exchange of particulars regarding preliminary objections in reconvened 1983 grievance.
The union requested the Grievance Settlement Board to convene a further hearing regarding claims from a 1983 decision.
The employer raised preliminary objections.
The Board ordered a schedule for the exchange of amended particulars and documents between the parties regarding the preliminary objections and disputed facts.
Order issued directing a witness to attend the hearing after failing to appear pursuant to a summons.
The employer requested an order directing a witness to attend the hearing after he failed to appear despite being served with a summons.
The Grievance Settlement Board issued an order directing the witness to attend the scheduled hearing dates until his attendance is no longer required.
Grievance alleging failure to accommodate family status and breach of post rotation protocol dismissed.
The grievor, a correctional officer, was reassigned from a property officer post to accommodate his family responsibilities after his wife was injured.
Eight months later, he requested to return to the property officer post, but the employer assigned him to a different post.
The union grieved, alleging a breach of a local Post Rotation Protocol and discrimination on the basis of family status under the Ontario Human Rights Code and the collective agreement.
The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the employer's decision not to return the grievor to the property officer post was reasonable and did not constitute a failure to accommodate his family responsibilities.
Board splits jurisdiction over asbestos grievance, deferring health claims to WSIB but retaining failure-to-warn claims.
The employer brought a motion challenging the Public Service Grievance Board's jurisdiction to hear a grievance concerning the grievor's exposure to asbestos in the workplace.
The employer argued the claim was essentially for workplace injury and mental stress, falling under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB).
The Board found it had mixed jurisdiction: claims relating to personal injury and health consequences of asbestos exposure were deferred to the WSIB, while claims alleging the employer breached the Occupational Health and Safety Act by failing to warn or train the grievor remained within the Board's jurisdiction.
Grievance for overtime pay dismissed; post-shift travel and meal wait time not considered work time.
The union filed a group grievance claiming overtime pay for 1.5 hours spent by a fire crew waiting for food and travelling to a hotel after their shift ended.
The union argued the time was work time because the crew leader had care and control of a Ministry vehicle.
The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding the time was not work time as the employees were not obligated to use the vehicle or the time for the employer's benefit.
The Board also found no enforceable right to the overtime pay despite other crews receiving it due to a different manager's discretion.
Grievances regarding assignment of overtime to out of district and contract crews denied.
The union filed group grievances on behalf of seasonal crew leaders, alleging that the employer unfairly assigned overtime work to out of district and contract fire crews while local crew members were required to take scheduled days off.
The employer argued the assignment complied with Ministry Directive No. FM:3:05, considering financial and safety factors.
The arbitrator found that the collective agreement provision relied upon by the union did not apply to seasonal employees and that there was no evidence of bad faith or unreasonable exercise of management discretion.
The grievances were denied.
Preliminary rulings issued regarding the scope and handling of an Independent Medical Evaluation report.
In a grievance regarding the Employer's alleged failure to accommodate, a teleconference was held to address preliminary issues concerning an upcoming Independent Medical Evaluation (IME).
The Vice-Chair ruled that the grievor's general practitioner could provide written documentation to the IME but could not engage in verbal consultation.
The Vice-Chair also ordered that the IME report be kept in a sealed envelope with restricted access by the Employer, and that the IME be instructed to limit the report's contents to medical history relevant to the grievor's neurological condition and need for accommodation.
Job competition results nullified due to employer's exclusive reliance on interview scores over actual experience.
The Association filed a grievance alleging the employer contravened the collective agreement by awarding a Health Care Coordinator position to an external candidate instead of the grievor, an internal candidate.
The arbitrator found the selection process was fundamentally flawed because the employer relied almost exclusively on interview and test scores, failing to consider the grievor's ten years of actual experience in the same position or to check her references.
The arbitrator declared the competition results null and void and ordered a new competition restricted to the grievor and the successful candidate.
Ministry counsel directed to review law firm documents and list those claiming privilege.
In a grievance alleging the Ministry inappropriately disclosed employees' names and addresses to an inmate and failed to provide legal representation, the Grievance Settlement Board previously ordered the Ministry to produce documents.
A law firm holding some documents refused production, claiming privilege.
The Board directed Ministry counsel to attend the law firm, review the documents, and prepare a list of arguably relevant documents for which privilege is claimed, to be provided to the union prior to the next hearing date.
Grievance dismissed; holiday payment provision is a complete code for employees working on a paid holiday.
The union grieved that an employee was not paid correctly for working two call backs on the Thanksgiving Day paid holiday.
The employee received premium pay and holiday pay under the holiday payment provision of the collective agreement, but the union argued he was also entitled to an additional 8 hours of pay under the general holiday provision.
The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the holiday payment provision constitutes a complete code for compensating employees who work on a paid holiday, and there is no independent entitlement to additional holiday pay under the general holiday provision.
Employer ordered to produce records for specific examples of legal representation provided to other employees.
In a grievance alleging the Ministry violated the Human Rights Code and collective agreement by inappropriately disclosing grievors' names to an inmate and failing to provide legal representation, both parties made disclosure requests.
The union consented to producing receipts and medical documentation.
The employer consented to producing IIU report backup documentation, insurance policies, and the civil litigation file.
The employer objected to the union's request for records of other employees provided with legal representation in similar lawsuits, arguing it was a fishing expedition.
The arbitrator ordered the employer to review and produce information for three specific examples identified by the union, finding that identifying specific cases met the test of arguable relevance.
Grievances dismissed; individual employees cannot grieve unequal pay given to others for temporary reassignments.
The union filed 193 individual grievances alleging that the employer violated the collective agreement by providing unequal pay for the same work when it temporarily reassigned six correctional officers to other facilities and paid them additional travel compensation.
The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievances.
On a preliminary objection, the Board held that the individual grievors lacked standing to grieve the compensation paid to other employees because they were paid in accordance with the collective agreement and were not directly affected.
On the merits, the Board found that the temporary reassignments did not constitute vacancies requiring posting under Article 6 of the collective agreement, even though some assignments were extended beyond the original three-month period.
Employer ordered to produce particulars and lead evidence first in union grievance.
In a union grievance, the Grievance Settlement Board ordered the Employer to produce particulars of its case to the Union.
The Board also ordered that the Employer lead its evidence first due to its control over the work in dispute, noting this has no impact on the onus.
Evidence of past events resolved by a prior settlement is inadmissible to establish a pattern of behaviour.
During a grievance hearing regarding harassment and a poisoned work environment, the union sought to introduce evidence of events from 1996 that had been resolved by a prior Memorandum of Settlement.
The employer objected to the admissibility of this evidence.
The Grievance Settlement Board upheld the employer's objection, ruling that the evidence was inadmissible.
The Board emphasized the sanctity of settlements and noted that allowing such evidence would undermine the finality of resolved disputes and discourage future settlements.
Verbal settlement of grievances enforced despite grievor's subsequent refusal to sign formal minutes of settlement.
The union and the employer engaged in mediation to resolve several grievances filed by the grievor.
The employer made a verbal offer to settle three of the grievances, which the grievor and union counsel subsequently accepted.
However, upon receiving the formal written Minutes of Settlement, the grievor refused to sign, citing various reasons including a lack of understanding due to stress and anxiety, and anger over other employer actions.
The employer brought a preliminary motion to enforce the settlement.
The Grievance Settlement Board found that a binding agreement had been reached, as the written minutes were consistent with the accepted verbal offer and the grievor's subsequent correspondence did not indicate any genuine confusion about the terms.
The Board declared the settlement in effect.
Union reasonably rejected draft letter of counsel under settlement agreement; Employer ordered to revise.
The parties reached a Memorandum of Settlement regarding several grievances, which required the Employer to replace a letter of reprimand with a letter of counsel.
The settlement stipulated that the content of the letter of counsel was subject to the approval of the parties.
The Union rejected the Employer's drafted letter of counsel, arguing it was overly retrospective, accusatory, and failed to clearly set out expectations for future conduct.
The Grievance Settlement Board, remaining seized of the settlement's implementation, found that the Union reasonably exercised its right to reject the draft.
The Board ordered the Employer to revise the letter of counsel to be more forward-looking and instructive.
Third party notice not required where grievance seeks to invalidate resignation rather than challenge incumbent's appointment.
At the commencement of a grievance arbitration hearing regarding the denial of a leave of absence and subsequent resignation, the union moved to adjourn the proceedings to provide third party notice to the incumbent who had filled the grievor's former position.
The employer opposed the motion.
The Grievance Settlement Board denied the request for an adjournment, ruling that third party notice was not required because the union was not challenging the competition process through which the incumbent was appointed, but rather seeking to invalidate the grievor's resignation.
