Ferina Murji

The grievor, an Income Support Specialist, filed two grievances alleging discrimination on the basis of creed and improper exercise of management rights.

The employer had directed her to stop handing out pens with scripture attached as Christmas gifts and issued a letter of counsel directing her to refrain from religious-based conversations and invitations in the workplace.

Another letter of counsel was issued regarding an allegation of racial profiling.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievances, finding that the letters of counsel were non-disciplinary and that the employer's actions were a reasonable exercise of management rights.

The Board also held that the right to hand out religious gifts or make religious invitations at work is not a protected religious practice under the Human Rights Code, and therefore no discrimination occurred.

The Union was previously ordered to provide the grievor's income tax forms and credit card invoices to the Employer.

The Union provided the credit card statements but redacted the descriptions of the expenses, citing privacy and relevance.

The Employer argued this rendered the statements useless for assessing the grievor's financial hardship claims.

The Grievance Settlement Board found the Union breached the previous order by unilaterally redacting the documents and ordered the production of complete, unredacted credit card statements and tax returns.

In an interim decision during a grievance arbitration, the union sought an adjournment to contact individuals and recall an employer witness for further cross-examination.

The union argued it was surprised by the witness's denial of having complained to management about a co-worker.

The employer objected, asserting the union had prior notice of the denial.

The Vice-Chair reviewed the hearing notes and concluded the union had been clearly informed during earlier cross-examination that the witness would deny the allegations.

Consequently, the union's request to recall the witness was denied.

The union filed grievances alleging that the employer contravened the overtime provision of the collective agreement by not including attendance credits in the calculation of overtime for unclassified correctional officers.

The union argued that an employee using an attendance credit for a sick day should be treated as having worked that day for the purpose of reaching the weekly overtime threshold.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievances, finding that the collective agreement required unclassified employees to actually perform work to meet the overtime threshold, and that the use of attendance credits provided income protection only, not deemed hours worked for overtime purposes.

The union filed health and safety grievances seeking monetary compensation for a workplace injury.

The employer brought a preliminary motion arguing that the Grievance Settlement Board lacked jurisdiction to award monetary compensation because the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act (WSIA) grants exclusive jurisdiction over such compensation to the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board.

The Board dismissed the employer's motion, finding that while the predecessor legislation extinguished 'all rights and rights of action', section 26(2) of the current WSIA only extinguishes 'rights of action'.

Since a grievance is not an action, the Board retained its remedial jurisdiction to award compensation for a violation of the collective agreement.

The union filed grievances alleging that the grievor suffered harassment and discrimination based on sexual orientation, creating a poisoned work environment.

The employer brought a motion to exclude evidence of events that occurred prior to a 1998 Minutes of Settlement.

The union brought a motion seeking a compliance order, alleging the employer breached a previous interim relief order by failing to pay the grievor full-time wages during a work hardening program.

The Grievance Settlement Board granted the employer's motion, finding that admitting evidence of events settled by the 1998 Minutes of Settlement would be inequitable and prejudicial.

The Board dismissed the union's motion, finding the employer treated the grievor like any other employee returning to work on a gradual basis and did not breach the interim order.

The Union filed a grievance alleging the Employer violated the collective agreement by failing to reimburse insulin pumps and supplies.

At the hearing, the parties agreed to adjourn the matter.

The Vice-Chair ordered the Employer to produce specific information regarding Manulife's past coverage, cost of claims, and direction letters related to insulin pumps and supplies.

The grievor filed grievances challenging various suspensions, his discharge, and alleged discrimination.

The Union sought an order for particulars regarding two inmate witnesses the Employer intended to rely on.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the Employer to provide the facts upon which it intended to rely and to disclose all materials, including written, electronic, and handwritten notes, regarding the two inmates for any incarcerations in any Ministry institution.

The union brought a motion to consolidate two grievances filed by a correctional officer.

The first grievance alleged workplace harassment and discrimination, while the second alleged a failure to accommodate her return to work following an extended sick leave.

The employer opposed consolidation, arguing the issues were separate and distinct.

The Grievance Settlement Board granted the motion, finding that the grievances shared common questions of law and fact, and that requiring the union to present the same medical evidence in two separate hearings would be inefficient.

The union sought an interim relief order to place the grievor, a correctional officer who alleged harassment and discrimination based on sexual orientation, in an accommodated position outside a correctional facility pending the hearing of his grievance.

The employer opposed, arguing such an order was akin to a final remedy.

The Grievance Settlement Board held it had jurisdiction under the Labour Relations Act to order interim relief requiring positive action.

Finding that the union had an arguable case and that the potential harm to the grievor's health and finances outweighed any inconvenience to the employer, the Board ordered the employer to make best efforts to accommodate the grievor within 30 days, failing which he would be placed back on the payroll.

The union filed grievances alleging that the employer discriminated against, harassed, and reprised against the grievor based on her religious beliefs.

After the union closed its case, the employer brought a motion for non-suit without electing whether to call evidence.

The Grievance Settlement Board applied the test for a non-suit, finding that the union had presented some evidence supporting the essential elements of its claim.

The employer's motion for non-suit was dismissed.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued an order amending a previous scheduling order dated April 19, 2004.

Following correspondence from union counsel advising that one of the grievances had been settled, the Board corrected the file references and reallocated the remaining grievances into two separate sets of hearings scheduled for October, November, and December 2004.

The union closed its case in a grievance alleging discrimination and harassment based on religious beliefs.

The employer indicated it would bring a motion for non-suit.

The union argued the employer should be put to an election as to whether it will lead evidence before the motion is entertained.

The Grievance Settlement Board reviewed its jurisprudence and concluded that it would not require an election unless the responding party could satisfy the Board that considerations of expedience versus fairness justified it.

Finding that the union had not met this onus, the Board allowed the employer to proceed with its non-suit motion without making an election.

The employer brought a preliminary motion arguing that three grievors were bound by a prior arbitration award that resolved 85 outstanding grievances regarding the use of underfill designations.

The prior award allowed grievors to pursue their claims if they raised different issues.

The union argued the three grievors had unique circumstances, including promotions from lower-rated classifications and inconsistent regional practices.

The arbitrator found that the issues raised were not novel and had been addressed in the prior litigation.

The employer's motion was granted, and the grievors were limited to the $1,000 payment ordered in the prior award.

The union sought production of documents relating to the adjustment of work hours for other employees, arguing it was relevant to the grievor's claim of failure to accommodate a disability.

The arbitrator dismissed the request, finding the information irrelevant as the employer did not claim undue hardship but rather disputed the existence of a disability and the provision of medical information.

The arbitrator also ordered the union to provide written particulars of any acts or omissions relied upon to demonstrate discriminatory motivation or effect.

The grievor filed a grievance alleging failure to accommodate and harassment.

The grievance was denied at the second stage, but the referral to arbitration was delayed by approximately three years.

The Employer raised a preliminary objection regarding timeliness.

After the initial hearing, the Employer requested to reopen the hearing to present recent binding jurisprudence.

The arbitrator allowed the hearing to be reopened, finding it necessary to decide the matter based on the correct legal principles.

Applying the Court of Appeal's decision in Leisure World, the arbitrator held that section 48(16) of the Labour Relations Act does not confer jurisdiction to extend time limits for referring a grievance to arbitration.

The Employer's motion was granted and the grievance was dismissed.

The employer brought a preliminary motion requesting that the union be ordered to provide particulars regarding a grievance added to the proceeding by agreement.

The grievance alleged violations of the collective agreement related to negative material on the grievor's file and alleged harassment.

The union did not dispute the employer's entitlement to particulars but cited difficulties obtaining information from the grievor.

The Grievance Settlement Board granted the motion, ordering the union to provide written particulars by a specified date to ensure fairness and allow the employer to prepare its defence.

The union sought production of a Memorandum of Settlement entered into between the employer and another employee, which was currently under seal.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the employer to obtain, review, and produce the Memorandum of Settlement to union counsel, subject to the implied undertaking that it be used solely for the purposes of the current proceedings.

The Union grieved the Employer's decision to rescind temporary Income Security Specialist appointments and cancel the competition based on allegations of cheating.

In this phase of the proceeding, the Grievance Settlement Board determined the legal standard applicable to the rescission of temporary appointments not governed by Article 6 of the collective agreement.

The Board held that it had jurisdiction to review the matter, as Article 8.6.2 did not oust its jurisdiction.

The Board further held that while the offers and acceptances created individual contracts of employment, management retained the right to appoint and rescind appointments under Article 2, subject to the requirement that it act in good faith and for rational business reasons.

The union filed a group grievance alleging that the grievors' continuous service dates should include a period from 1983 to 1986 when they worked at the Southwest Regional Centre as nominal independent contractors or third-party employees.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that even if the grievors were in substance Crown employees during that period, they were not appointed to the unclassified service as required by the collective agreement for seniority credit.

The Grievance Settlement Board agreed, finding that the collective agreement only grants credit for specific types of Crown employment, namely appointment to the unclassified service under the Public Service Act.

As the grievors were not so appointed during the disputed period, the grievance was dismissed.