Ferina Murji

The grievor filed grievances alleging the Employer failed to accommodate his disability by denying him health reassignment to three disputed positions: Customer Care Team Advisor, Administrative Assistant, and Correspondence Coordinator.

The parties agreed to a written hearing protocol to determine solely whether the grievor was qualified for these positions.

The Vice-Chair assessed the grievor's skills and experience against the minimum necessary qualifications for each role.

The Vice-Chair found the grievor was not qualified for the Customer Care Team Advisor or Correspondence Coordinator positions, dismissing those portions of the grievances.

However, the Vice-Chair concluded the grievor possessed the minimum necessary qualifications for the Administrative Assistant position, remitting that matter back to the parties for discussion.

The complainant requested a telephone hearing as an accommodation for a disability, asserting he was unable to attend a physical hearing in Toronto.

The employer opposed the request, noting the lack of medical documentation.

The Public Service Grievance Board denied the request for a telephone hearing, directing that the matter be scheduled in the normal course.

The Board held that any request for accommodation of its processes on the basis of disability must be supported by appropriate and sufficient medical documentation outlining the restrictions and limitations.

The Union brought a motion to consolidate two grievances filed on behalf of the grievor.

The first grievance challenged a 20-day disciplinary suspension for allegedly throwing a wet floor sign at an inmate, while the second alleged a privacy breach after the employer publicized the discipline on a shared computer drive.

The Union argued both actions were motivated by anti-union animus.

The Grievance Settlement Board granted the motion to consolidate, finding that the grievances shared common questions of law and fact, arose out of the same occurrence, and that hearing them together would be a more efficient use of resources without causing prejudice to the employer.

The Union brought a motion to bar the Employer from sending a letter to an Independent Medical Examination (IME) physician, arguing the letter was factually incorrect and would prejudice the physician against the grievor.

The parties had previously executed Minutes of Settlement requiring the Employer to provide the Union with the questions for the IME doctor for discussion prior to sending them.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the motion, finding that the settlement did not obligate the Employer to share the accompanying letter with the Union.

The Board noted that the Union retains the right to challenge the neutrality of the IME report at the hearing on the merits.

The Employer requested particulars and disclosure from the Union in relation to multiple grievances.

Following a hearing, the Grievance Settlement Board ordered the Union to provide the requested information within 60 days.

The Board noted that failure to comply could result in the Employer bringing a motion to dismiss the grievances.

The union brought a grievance seeking indemnification of the grievor's civil and criminal legal expenses arising from an incident on September 21, 2010, pursuant to article COR14 of the collective agreement.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the employer to reimburse the grievor for his legal costs upon the provision of receipts.

The order was made without precedential value.

The grievor, an Income Support Specialist with 25 years of service, was terminated for insubordination after failing to provide requested medical information and refusing to attend an independent medical examination (IME) to substantiate her absence due to 'workplace stress and anxiety'.

The grievor alleged the employer's actions were discriminatory and a reprisal for past grievances and a human rights complaint.

The Grievance Settlement Board found the employer's requests for medical information were reasonable and the grievor's refusal to cooperate constituted culpable conduct.

Finding no evidence of discrimination or reprisal, the Board upheld the termination and dismissed the grievance.

The union filed approximately 235 grievances alleging that the employer failed to make reasonable provisions for the health and safety of employees by exposing them to second-hand smoke in correctional facilities.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that many of the grievances were untimely.

The parties agreed to use one grievance as a test case.

The grievor had been exposed to second-hand smoke between 1991 and 2001, but did not file a grievance until November 2005, after learning of financial awards in other legal proceedings related to second-hand smoke.

The union requested an extension of the time limits under subsection 48(16) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the grievor was solely responsible for the lengthy delay and had not acted diligently in pursuing his rights.

The Board concluded there were no reasonable grounds to extend the time limit and dismissed the test case grievance as untimely.

The Employer raised a preliminary objection that the Grievance Settlement Board lacked jurisdiction to hear grievances concerning its unilateral decision to cease agreeing to compensating time off (CTO) for overtime worked.

The Employer argued that the collective agreement made CTO subject to mutual agreement, and its refusal to agree was an unreviewable exercise of management rights.

The Union argued the decision violated local agreements, past practice, and other collective agreement provisions.

The Board dismissed the Employer's preliminary objections, finding it had jurisdiction to determine whether the Employer's exercise of management rights adversely affected substantive rights under the collective agreement, and that the Union had provided sufficient particulars of its case.

The employer brought a motion for the production of the complainant's medical documents, including clinical notes from her general practitioner, her psychiatrist's complete file, and decoded OHIP forms.

The complainant, who alleged wrongful dismissal after being terminated for attending school while on short-term sick leave, opposed the motion.

The Board granted the motion in part, ordering the production of the psychiatrist's notes and records, as the complainant had put her mental health at issue by claiming her school attendance was part of a recommended treatment plan.

However, the Board denied the request for the general practitioner's records and OHIP forms, finding them overly broad and unnecessary at this stage.

The union brought a motion to declare a 2004 settlement agreement of no force and effect, arguing it had been frustrated.

The settlement provided the grievor with 130 sick days upon the cessation of his WSIB benefits.

The grievor's condition deteriorated, and his WSIB benefits were locked in until age 65, meaning he would likely never access the sick days.

The union argued this was a supervening event that frustrated the contract.

The employer raised a preliminary objection, arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction to interfere with a settled matter and that the doctrine of frustration did not apply.

The Vice-Chair agreed with the employer, finding that the continuation of WSIB benefits could reasonably have been contemplated by the parties and that performance of the contract was not strictly prevented.

The union's motion was dismissed, and the settlement remained intact.

The Union requested an extension of time to file particulars, citing the grievor's illness, though it could not provide specific details of the illness or explain the delay.

The Grievance Settlement Board granted a two-week extension to September 11, 2009, ordering that the grievance would be dismissed if particulars were not provided by that date, subject to the Union's right to show cause for reinstatement based on exceptional circumstances.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed several grievances due to the union's failure to deliver particulars in accordance with previous orders.

The hearing for the remaining grievances was adjourned to allow counsel to complete arguments on whether the union's particulars established a prima facie case, including whether the claims were precluded by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act.

The Union brought a motion to change the venue of the grievance hearing from Toronto to the Niagara area, citing the grievor's medical condition and the inconvenience of bus travel.

The Employer opposed the motion, noting that the grievor refused to disclose the medical note supporting her request.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the motion, finding that the balance of convenience favoured Toronto and that the grievor's refusal to provide medical evidence to the Employer and the Board rendered her request for medical accommodation a nullity.

The union grieved the employer's decision to screen the grievor out of a job competition for a Senior Field Auditor position.

The employer screened out the grievor because she did not possess a university degree, which was a required qualification in the job posting.

The union argued that the grievor's prior audit experience should have been considered in lieu of the degree requirement.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that the employer had the right to set qualifications and did not act unreasonably in requiring a university degree, especially given that the grievor's relevant experience was not extensive enough to overcome the lack of the required educational credential.

Two Operational Managers grieved their salary treatment for discontinuous acting assignments prior to their permanent confirmation.

They argued that their acting assignments should have been treated as continuous or cumulative, which would have resulted in higher salaries due to merit pay eligibility.

The Public Service Grievance Board dismissed the grievances, finding that the employer correctly applied the Pay on Assignment Operating Policy, which treats each assignment as a discrete event.

The Board found no evidence of arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad faith treatment compared to other managers.

The union grieved the employer's decision to screen the grievor out of a competition for a Senior Field Auditor position.

The union argued that the job posting's educational requirements allowed for the grievor's accounting courses to substitute for a university degree or professional accounting designation.

The arbitrator rejected the union's interpretation, finding that the plain language and grammatical structure of the posting required candidates to possess either a professional accounting designation or a university degree that included or was supplemented by specific accounting courses.

The grievance was dismissed.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance after the grievor failed to attend the scheduled hearing.

In a prior decision, the Board had given the union ten business days to provide an explanation for the absence and to show good cause why the grievance should not be dismissed.

As no explanation was received within the allotted time, the grievance was dismissed.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the adjournment of scheduled hearing dates due to pending related criminal proceedings.

The Board also ordered the Union to provide signed consent forms for the grievor's OHIP, family physician, and chiropractor records.

The Employer was ordered to provide a full, unedited copy of the Preliminary Review Report and the Report of the Investigation into Allegations of Resident Abuse, including witness statements, as well as information regarding injuries to two residents.

The documents are to be used solely for the litigation.

The matter was scheduled for a mediation-arbitration hearing.

The grievor failed to attend the hearing and the Employer advised that the grievor had resigned effective that day.

The Employer moved to dismiss the grievance.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the Union to provide an explanation for the grievor's failure to attend and to show good cause within ten days why the grievance should not be dismissed.