Ferina Murji

The union filed a group grievance claiming compensation for vandalism to employees' vehicles in the workplace parking lot.

In an interim award, the arbitrator held that the alleged facts did not constitute a violation of the collective agreement.

The union argued that the arbitrator nevertheless had jurisdiction under the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Weber v. Ontario Hydro.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, holding that Weber does not expand arbitral jurisdiction beyond controversies governed by the express or implied terms of a collective agreement.

Because the property damage claim did not arise under the agreement, the arbitrator lacked jurisdiction.

The union grieved the employer's decision to cancel a job competition for temporary Income Support Specialist positions after verbal offers had been made and accepted by the successful candidates.

The employer cancelled the competition based on allegations of cheating and impropriety during the interview process.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that because the offers had already been made and accepted, the standard for cancelling a competition mid-stream did not apply.

While the employer had a duty to investigate the credible allegations, it could not cancel the competition and rescind the appointments based solely on allegations without proof of improper activity.

The union filed a group grievance claiming compensation for vandalism to the grievors' vehicles in the employer's parking lot, alleging the employer failed to take reasonable precautions.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the matter was not covered by the collective agreement.

The arbitrator held that the management rights clause (article 2.1) did not create a positive obligation to protect employee property, and the health and safety clause (article 9.1) only applied where employees themselves were placed at risk of bodily injury.

As the union did not allege the employees were endangered, the facts alleged would not constitute a violation of the collective agreement.

The arbitrator left open whether jurisdiction flows from the principles in Weber v. Ontario Hydro.

The union sought to consolidate multiple grievance files and raised issues regarding the arbitrator's jurisdiction to entertain remedies outside a prior memorandum of settlement.

At the hearing, the arbitrator directed that the files be listed together for hearing sequentially.

In light of this direction, the union withdrew its request for consolidation, and the employer reserved its right to raise jurisdictional issues as the individual files are heard.

The union filed a grievance alleging the employer violated the collective agreement by offering a vacant position to the second-place candidate from a recent job competition without re-posting the position.

The first-place candidate had accepted the position but subsequently vacated it.

The union argued that the collective agreement provision allowing the employer to hire qualified candidates from a previous competition within six months applied only to bargaining unit members.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding the collective agreement language clear and unambiguous, with no restriction limiting the provision's application to bargaining unit members.