Ferina Murji

The Employer raised preliminary objections to two grievances filed by the Union on behalf of the grievor, arguing they were barred by res judicata, functus officio, and disclosed no prima facie case.

The grievances alleged improper deductions, failure to provide amended T4s following retroactive WSIB payments, and harassment related to a civil claim by the benefits provider.

The arbitrator found that the financial issues raised in the grievances had either been expressly addressed in prior decisions between the parties or ought to have been raised during those proceedings.

The remaining allegation that the employment relationship was destroyed and warranted severance pay lacked a prima facie case, as the grievor remained on WSIB leave and no facts supported a Human Rights Code violation.

The preliminary objections were upheld and the grievances were dismissed.

The Union brought a request for production of documents, and the Employer brought preliminary motions regarding the scope of four active grievances and the arbitrability of one allegation.

The Arbitrator held that the scope of the grievances must be construed narrowly, limiting the evidence to the specific incidents set out in the grievance forms, given the contrast with a previously settled, broadly drafted grievance.

The Arbitrator found the grievor had standing to arbitrate an incident involving a coworker, as it could constitute harassment directed at the grievor.

Production of documents was ordered only to the extent they fell within the narrowed scope of the grievances, and requests for similar fact evidence and broad communications were denied to prevent a fishing expedition.

During submissions on preliminary motions relating to a grievance, an electrical power failure in Toronto disconnected the grievor from the virtual hearing.

As counsel would be unable to complete their submissions that day regardless, the arbitrator adjourned the proceedings and scheduled a new date for continuation.

The employer requested particulars for two grievances.

The arbitrator found that emails attached to the first grievance served as sufficient particulars.

However, the second grievance lacked a coherent explanation.

The arbitrator ordered the grievor to provide coherent particulars for the second grievance by April 12, 2024, failing which it would be dismissed for lack of arbitrability.

The employer raised a preliminary objection regarding the scope of evidence the union could adduce concerning a previously settled grievance.

The settlement allowed the grievor to speak to the settled grievance for background purposes only.

The arbitrator held that while the union could not relitigate the underlying facts or establish a course of conduct reaching back to the settled grievance, the grievor could refer to the facts for context.

The union's particulars and investigation reports were admitted to explain how the active grievances referenced the settled incidents, but no findings of fact would be made regarding the settled grievance.

During a hearing on an employer's preliminary motion to dismiss 31 consolidated grievances, the parties agreed to consolidate five additional newly discovered grievances.

The employer objected to the union providing particulars for the new grievances, arguing it was too late and prejudicial as the employer had already commenced its submissions on the motion.

The Arbitrator held that the union was entitled to provide particulars for the new grievances, as the employer's prior submissions related only to the original grievances and the employer would not be prejudiced.

The union was ordered to provide the particulars by a specified date.

The applicant teachers' association sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision finding he lacked jurisdiction over a grievance regarding preparation, planning, and supervision provisions.

The arbitrator concluded these provisions were local terms, not central terms under the School Boards Collective Bargaining Act, 2014.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard and upheld the arbitrator's decision, finding his purposive and contextual interpretation of 'central terms' was consistent with the statutory scheme and legislative intent.

The applicants sought judicial review of an interim decision by the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding whether certain bargaining proposals were central or local issues under the School Boards Collective Bargaining Act.

Following the Board's decision, the parties reached an agreement that the disputed issues were central, resolving the underlying conflict.

The Divisional Court dismissed the applications for judicial review as moot, declining to exercise its discretion to hear the matter because the Board's procedural decision did not set a dangerous precedent requiring appellate intervention.

The grievor sought reconsideration of a January 6, 2021 decision, claiming additional money was owed by the employer, including unpaid WSIB amounts, interest on delayed payments, and excessive tax deductions.

The arbitrator reviewed the comprehensive payments document provided by the employer and found no errors or miscalculations to support the grievor's claims.

The arbitrator dismissed the first four claims but allowed the employer an opportunity to respond to the grievor's sixth claim regarding alleged double CPP and EI deductions.

The union filed a grievance claiming the grievor was short paid for the 65-day waiting period prior to receiving WSIB payments.

The employer abandoned its counterclaim for alleged double payment.

The parties exchanged documents revealing the grievor was short paid $3,652.74 for the 65-day period in 2013, and $258.51 for sick leave absences in 2014.

The arbitrator upheld the grievance and ordered the employer to pay the total amount of $3,911.25 plus interest.

The Union raised a jurisdictional challenge to the Employer's counterclaim for reimbursement of alleged double payments made to the Grievor while he was receiving WSIB benefits.

The arbitrator issued directions for the parties to provide written submissions on the jurisdictional challenge before proceeding further.

The union referred grievances to arbitration under the collective agreement.

The parties agreed to proceed under the expedited procedure in Article 22.16.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievances in an oral decision at the hearing, and issued this written award confirming the dismissal without written reasons, in accordance with the parties' policy for expedited hearings.

The Grievance Settlement Board determined that most issues arising from the grievances were resolved by the Minutes of Settlement signed by the parties.

The only remaining issues to be determined were the grievor's claim for 65 days' pay during the WSIB waiting period and the employer's counterclaim for double payment.

The Board set a schedule for the exchange of written particulars and documents regarding these remaining claims.

The employer brought a motion to dismiss the grievances of four individuals, which the union opposed.

Following submissions, the Vice-Chair directed the employer to pay $500 to the union's counsel in trust and dismissed all issues raised in the grievances.

The remaining hearing dates were cancelled.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the union's grievance regarding an employee's layoff due to an untimely referral to arbitration.

The union referred the grievance to arbitration approximately two and a half months late due to an administrative error while processing a related policy grievance.

Applying the Burkett factors under section 48(16) of the Labour Relations Act, the arbitrator granted an extension of time, finding that the delay was not the grievor's fault, the issue was akin to a termination, and there was no substantial prejudice to the employer.

The motion to dismiss was denied.

The complainant filed a grievance against the employer.

Following multiple interim decisions directing the complainant to provide appropriate medical documentation to support a request for hearing accommodation, the complainant failed to comply by the deadline.

Instead, the complainant sent an email withdrawing the complaint.

The Public Service Grievance Board accepted the withdrawal and terminated the proceedings.

The complainant requested that the Board vary its prior interim decision, which required him to provide more fulsome medical evidence to support his request for an adjournment and accommodation based on disability.

The complainant asserted that confidentiality issues precluded the provision of further medical evidence and requested a file review decision.

The Board dismissed the request to vary, finding no basis to reconsider its earlier decision and noting that confidentiality does not preclude providing medical documentation if consent is given.

The employer's request to dismiss the complaint in its entirety was deferred, and the complainant was directed to comply with the prior directions by the specified deadline.

The union filed six grievances on behalf of the grievor alleging harassment, discrimination, and other violations.

The grievor failed to attend the scheduled arbitration hearing, and union counsel suggested this was due to mental health issues.

The employer requested orders for particulars and medical evidence to substantiate the grievor's inability to participate.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the union to provide medical evidence from the grievor's treating psychiatrist if she claims inability to participate due to health issues, and to provide full particulars and disclosure at least 10 days before the next scheduled hearing date.

The complainant requested that his grievance hearing be conducted by telephone conference due to medical reasons.

The employer objected, arguing the medical note provided was insufficient and that an in-person hearing was necessary to properly respond to the complaint.

The Board found the medical note insufficient as it did not clearly identify the basis for the complainant's inability to attend in person or how the risk of decompensation could be managed.

The Board adjourned the hearing and directed the complainant to provide a more fulsome medical report and a full statement of facts.

The Union filed a group grievance on behalf of seven female correctional officers alleging workplace harassment, bullying, and gender discrimination by the Superintendent.

The Employer brought preliminary motions arguing that some allegations were untimely, some had been previously settled, and others failed to make out a prima facie case.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the Union's preliminary motion for production of investigation reports.

The Board then struck the pleadings for five of the seven grievors, finding they either failed to make out a prima facie case, were untimely, or relied on previously settled grievances.

The grievance was permitted to proceed for the remaining two grievors, subject to the striking of certain pleadings related to settled matters.