Gavin Leeb

The union grieved that the employer discriminated against the grievor on the basis of race or colour in job competitions and by not renewing his unclassified contract.

At the close of the union's case, the employer brought a non-suit motion, arguing the union failed to establish a prima facie case.

The employer also argued that the grievor, as an unclassified employee, could not grieve a breach of Article 6.3, and that the union could not now allege bad faith.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that Article 6.3 did not apply to the grievor and that the union could not expand its grievance to allege bad faith.

However, applying the 'sufficient evidence' test for a non-suit motion and considering circumstantial and hearsay evidence, the Board found that the union had presented some evidence that could support an inference of discrimination if left unanswered.

The non-suit motion was dismissed and the hearing was ordered to continue.

The union grieved the employer's decision to restrict a Conservation Officer to clerical duties and deny him his firearm and badge pending an independent medical examination (IME).

The employer argued the grievor's past behaviour, including a firearm storage incident and angry outbursts, raised safety concerns justifying the IME under the collective agreement.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the employer lacked reasonable and probable grounds to believe the grievor was unable to perform his duties for health reasons, as the past incidents were treated as culpable misconduct rather than health issues.

The grievance was allowed, and the employer was directed to restore the grievor to full duties.

The union filed multiple grievances alleging the grievor was improperly denied interviews for Tax Auditor positions and was discriminated against based on age.

The Grievance Settlement Board reviewed the screening criteria and scoring for the competitions, finding that the employer reasonably assessed the grievor's lack of relevant auditing experience compared to other candidates.

The Board found no evidence of age discrimination and dismissed the grievances related to the heard competitions.

The employer brought a motion to dismiss the grievor's discharge and discipline grievances after the grievor repeatedly breached a Board order by disclosing restricted documents to external parties, including the OPP and RCMP.

The employer argued the grievor's conduct demonstrated he was ungovernable and that the employment relationship was irrevocably severed.

The Board found the breaches to be extremely serious but declined to dismiss the grievances as a preliminary matter, noting that the employer had not yet proven the grievor was ungovernable in the first instance.

The Board issued a last chance order, warning that any further breach would result in prompt dismissal of all grievances, and admitted the evidence of the breaches as post-grievance evidence.

In an interim decision on an evidentiary issue, the union sought to introduce evidence of settlement discussions between the grievor and the employer in its reply evidence.

The employer objected, arguing the discussions were privileged, irrelevant, and beyond the proper scope of reply.

The Grievance Settlement Board upheld the employer's objection, finding that the evidence of settlement discussions was not relevant to the issues in dispute, as the mere fact that settlement discussions occurred does not support an inference of an admission of liability.

The union and employer disputed the compensation owed to correctional officers who obtained medical certificates in response to a blanket requirement that was previously found to be improper.

The parties referred the dispute over remedy to the Grievance Settlement Board.

The Vice-Chair issued a procedural order establishing a timetable and requirements for the pre-hearing exchange of particulars and documentary productions.

The Union filed grievances on behalf of Transportation Enforcement Officers 2 at the Essex South Truck Inspection Station, claiming they were entitled to overtime for work performed by a special Truck Response Unit (TRU) brought in from outside the district.

The TRU members worked more than 7.25 hours per day but did not claim overtime, as they were operating under their own Compressed Work Week Agreements (CWWAs) which allowed for flexible scheduling up to 362.5 hours over a 10-week period.

The Union argued the CWWAs did not follow the TRU members to the new geographic location and that the excess daily hours constituted overtime that should have been distributed equitably to the local officers.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievances, finding that the CWWAs did follow the employees to the new location, no overtime was actually worked or authorized, and the Employer had valid operational reasons for assigning the work to the out-of-town officers without incurring overtime costs.

The Union brought motions for the production of the grievor's human rights complaint and for a six-month adjournment because the grievor had lost confidence in the system.

The Employer brought a motion to dismiss the remaining grievances as abandoned.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the Employer to produce the human rights complaint, finding it relevant.

The Board denied the adjournment request, noting that the grievor's lack of faith in the process was not a valid reason.

The Board deferred its decision on the Employer's motion to dismiss until the next hearing date, stating that the remaining grievances would be dismissed as abandoned if the grievor failed to attend and provide an undertaking to participate.

In a grievance concerning the shift of residential counsellors from Classified to Seasonal status, the Grievance Settlement Board issued a preliminary award on the procedural question of which party should present its evidence first.

The Board directed the employer to proceed first with its evidence for reasons of efficiency, as the employer was in a better position to clarify the complex staffing and scheduling changes that occurred between 1991 and 2003.

However, the Board explicitly decoupled the order of proceeding from the onus of proof, confirming that the union still bears the onus.

The union grieved the employer's blanket requirement that all employees who claimed sick leave over the Thanksgiving weekend produce a medical certificate.

The union argued this violated article 44.10 of the collective agreement, which requires an individual determination of suspected abuse.

The employer argued it had the right to request certificates in the face of suspected concerted activity.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that while the employer may seek medical certificates on a blanket basis in the face of concerted activity, it failed to meet its evidentiary burden to prove such activity occurred in this case.

The grievances were allowed.

The grievor, an internal candidate with 20 years of government experience, applied for the position of Northern Development Adviser.

He was screened out at the resume evaluation stage and denied an interview.

The union grieved, arguing the screening process was flawed and the employer failed to properly credit the grievor's past experience in a precursor role.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the employer's assessment of the grievor's resume was incorrect and that he should have received a higher score on several criteria, which would have qualified him for an interview.

The grievance was allowed and the matter remitted to the parties for resolution.

The Union filed a grievance in 2003 regarding the conduct of Ministry inspectors during Section 22 investigations.

After years of proceedings and narrowing the scope to one specific investigation, the Union requested to consolidate two recent grievances involving different investigations into the current proceeding.

The Employer objected, arguing that one of the new grievances was already before another Vice-Chair and the other involved an incomplete investigation.

The Grievance Settlement Board denied the Union's request, finding that consolidation would increase the risk of inconsistent findings and create an inappropriate overlap of jurisdiction.

In a discharge grievance, the Employer brought a motion requesting an order that the Union provide particulars regarding its claims of discrimination and harassment.

The parties had previously agreed to hold the discrimination and harassment grievances in abeyance while proceeding first with the discipline and discharge grievances.

The Grievance Settlement Board denied the Employer's motion, finding that ordering particulars at this stage could potentially prejudice the grievor's rights, given the Employer's burden of proof in a discharge case and the Union's assurance that it did not intend to deal with the discrimination issues during the discipline hearing.

The union filed grievances objecting to the employer's use of police officers to escort inmates outside the correctional facility, alleging a violation of a 2001 Memorandum of Settlement (MOS).

The MOS restricted the use of police for community escorts, requiring the employer to first utilize classified correctional officers.

The central issue was whether the employer had to offer overtime to correctional officers who had not submitted availability sheets before resorting to police.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that, following the termination of the local overtime agreement, the MOS obligated the employer to make a reasonable effort to determine the availability of all classified correctional officers, including those not on the overtime list, before using police as escorts.

The Union requested that the Board order the Employer to comply with a disclosure request regarding an OPP investigation, and that the Board vacate a previous consent order restricting the grievor's use of the Employer's disclosure document.

The Employer confirmed full disclosure had been given regarding the OPP investigation, which the Union accepted.

The Board declined to vacate the restricted use order, finding that the grievor and Union had an opportunity to consider the issue before agreeing to it, and that the order did not preclude the grievor from discussing the facts with family and friends.

The Grievance Settlement Board previously issued a bottom-line decision substituting the grievor's discharge with a three-month suspension and directing his reinstatement.

The parties entered into an interim return to work agreement but could not agree on the grievor's permanent assignment location.

Following representations from counsel, the Vice-Chair directed the employer to assign the grievor to the Mimico Correctional Centre as a classified Correctional Officer 2 upon completion of his basic training.

Three provincial bailiffs grieved their discipline (two 20-day suspensions and one discharge) following an incident where an inmate escaped from their transport bus.

The Union argued the discipline was void due to double jeopardy and delay, but conceded some culpable conduct.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued a 'bottom line' decision, rejecting the double jeopardy and delay arguments.

The Board substituted the discharge with a three-month suspension, reduced one 20-day suspension to 10 days, and upheld the other 20-day suspension.

The parties agreed to hear two grievances together concerning job competitions and the non-renewal of a contract position.

The employer raised an arbitrability issue regarding one of the job competitions.

The parties agreed to bifurcate the hearing into two phases: the first phase to address the Mississauga office competitions and contract non-renewal, and the second phase to address the North York office competition and related arbitrability issues.

The Vice-Chair confirmed the hearing would proceed in accordance with this agreement.

The union filed a grievance claiming that unclassified employees in the Correctional Bargaining Unit were entitled to a 'max plus merit' wage increase based on Appendix 26 of the Central collective agreement.

The employer argued that the benefit was only intended for the Unified Bargaining Unit and that the placement of Appendix 26 in the Central agreement was a mistake.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the language and placement of Appendix 26 created an ambiguity.

Relying on extrinsic evidence of the parties' negotiating history, the Board concluded that there was no intention to confer the 'max plus merit' benefit on unclassified Correctional employees, who had instead negotiated an additional step on their wage grid.

The grievance was dismissed.

The Union requested disclosure of an unedited WDHP report and related documents in a discharge grievance.

The Employer agreed to provide the documents but requested an order restricting their use to the purposes of the hearing.

The Union agreed to the restriction for most documents but objected to its application to a specific letter dated September 29, 2006.

Following a conference call, the Vice-Chair granted the Employer's request to restrict the use of the letter, with the proviso that the Union or grievor could seek leave from the Board to use it for other bona fide reasons.