Gavin Leeb

The Employer brought a motion to compel the Union to provide additional particulars regarding a grievance alleging a failure to accommodate the grievor's disabilities under the Ontario Human Rights Code, prior to a scheduled hearing for interim relief.

The Vice-Chair reviewed the grievance, the Union's letter of particulars, and disclosed documents, concluding that they sufficiently outlined the 'who, what, where, when and how' of the allegations.

The Employer's concerns were deemed to be potential defences rather than a lack of basic particulars.

The motion for additional particulars was denied.

The union filed a discharge grievance on behalf of a casual correctional officer.

The employer brought a preliminary motion arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction because a prior grievance concerning the same discharge had been settled via a Memorandum of Agreement signed by the grievor, the union, and the employer.

The union argued the settlement should not bar the grievance because the grievor signed it under extreme personal duress.

The Board held that the grievor's signature was not a necessary condition for the validity of the settlement, as the union and employer are the necessary parties to a grievance settlement.

The Board found the settlement valid and binding, upheld the employer's motion, and dismissed the grievance for lack of jurisdiction.

The employer brought an interim application in the discharge grievances of two correctional officers who were found guilty of being parties to an assault causing bodily harm against an inmate.

The employer sought an order acknowledging that the Board was bound by all factual findings made by the trial judge in the criminal proceedings, and an order requiring the union to disclose material it intended to rely upon for mitigation.

The Board dismissed the application, holding that in an adversarial proceeding, it is for the employer to decide how to prove the material facts it believes are required to discharge its onus, and the Board would not advise the employer on how to proceed at the outset of its case.

The employer brought a motion arguing that the Grievance Settlement Board lacked jurisdiction to hear the grievor's discharge grievance because a prior grievance regarding the same discharge had been settled.

The union argued that the settlement document was not a typical settlement and that the grievor signed it under duress.

The Vice-Chair found that the settlement document was a valid and binding settlement of the prior grievance, which barred any further grievance.

The employer's motion was upheld and the grievance was dismissed.

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 Employer brought a preliminary motion to strike evidence and bar the introduction of further evidence relating to matters previously grieved by the grievor, which had been resolved by withdrawal or settlement.

The current grievance alleged a poisoned work environment and harassment.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the motion, finding that the current grievance was not identical or substantially similar in substance to the earlier grievances, which concerned staffing, training, and overtime.

Therefore, the arbitral rule of abandonment did not preclude the Union from relying on the underlying facts to support the new claim.

During a grievance arbitration regarding workplace harassment and resulting stress and anxiety, the employer brought a motion for the production of the grievor's decoded OHIP summary for a nine-year period.

The union opposed the request, arguing it was premature and overbroad.

The Grievance Settlement Board granted the motion, finding that the grievor's pre-existing medical condition and causation were significant issues in dispute.

The Board imposed conditions on the disclosure to address privacy concerns, limiting review to employer counsel and one advisor, prohibiting copies, and restricting use to the defense of the grievance.

In a grievance arbitration under the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act, the Grievance Settlement Board ordered the Union to provide the tax return information and documentation of the grievor and other witnesses from 1990 forward.

The Board noted it would consider requests by the Employer for additional tax years if the evidence indicated a need.

The Union filed a grievance asserting that unclassified employees in the Correctional Bargaining Unit are entitled to 'max plus merit' pay increases under the collective agreement.

The Employer raised a preliminary objection that the grievance was untimely, having been filed approximately a year after the increases were first implemented.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the Employer's motion, finding that the grievance was a continuing one because the alleged violation recurred with each pay period and each time an employee reached their anniversary date.

Furthermore, the Board held that the Employer had waived its right to object to timeliness by participating in the Joint Review Process and failing to raise the issue until the eve of the arbitration hearing.

The union filed grievances on behalf of the grievor alleging denial of access to several job competitions.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the grievances were filed well outside the mandatory 30-day time limit under the collective agreement.

The grievor, a long-time union activist, admitted he knew of the time limits but consciously delayed filing while pursuing other job opportunities.

Applying the Becker Milk test under s. 48(16) of the Labour Relations Act, the Vice-Chair found the grievor was not diligent, the delay of up to 8.5 months was significant, and extending the time limits would prejudice the employer and the successful candidates who had been in the positions for months.

The Board declined to exercise its discretion to extend the time limits and dismissed the grievances regarding the job postings.

The Employer moved to dismiss the proceeding on the basis that the Union failed to comply with a Board order regarding the production of the grievor's tax returns.

The grievor had made significant efforts to obtain the documents, but faced difficulties due to the unexpected death of her accountant.

The Board found no intentional disregard of the order and concluded that the missing documents were not central to the case.

The motion to dismiss was denied, though further efforts to obtain the tax returns were ordered.

The Union sought interim relief to prevent the Employer from terminating a temporary transfer agreement that allowed the grievor to work at the Milton courthouse instead of her home position at the Dufferin/Finch courthouse.

The grievor alleged the termination was in retaliation for her union activities and grievances.

The Employer argued the termination was due to operational needs and the expiration of the agreement.

The Grievance Settlement Board found it had jurisdiction and that there was an arguable case on the merits.

However, balancing the harm, the Board concluded that the potential harm to the Employer, including operational concerns and ongoing workplace conflict due to harassment allegations, outweighed the inconvenience to the grievor of commuting to the Dufferin/Finch location.

The motion for interim relief was denied.

The union filed grievances on behalf of water bomber pilots claiming that upon termination of their 1991 compressed work year agreement, they should be governed by the 1995 Float Agreement or alternatively the 1988 Float Agreement.

The employer argued they were excluded from the 1995 Float Agreement and should default to the standard collective agreement.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the plain language and negotiating history of the 1995 Float Agreement explicitly excluded the water bomber pilots.

However, the Board held that the 1988 Float Agreement remained the default agreement for these pilots, as the 1991 agreement was a temporary trial that did not extinguish their prior rights.

The grievor, a correctional officer, was discharged by the Ministry after it discovered he had been fired from his previous employment at a private correctional facility for sexually inappropriate conduct.

When applying to the Ministry, the grievor submitted a resume and letter that inadvertently misrepresented he was still employed at the private facility.

The Grievance Settlement Board applied the Gould Manufacturing approach to assess whether the misrepresentation justified discharge.

Finding the misrepresentation was inadvertent rather than deliberate, and weighing the grievor's prior unblemished seven-year service with the Ministry, the Board concluded the mitigating factors outweighed the misconduct.

The grievance was allowed in part, and the grievor was reinstated without compensation.

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 employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the discharge grievances of four correctional officers who were convicted of assaulting an inmate.

The employer argued that proceeding with the grievances would be an abuse of process and frivolous, relying on the criminal court's sentencing reasons and the restrictions on substituted penalties under the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the preliminary motion, holding that while it must give full effect to the criminal convictions, the union is still entitled to lead evidence and make submissions regarding the mitigation of the penalty.

During a grievance arbitration regarding whether transcript preparation is bargaining unit work, the Employer requested the complete income tax records of the grievor and other union witnesses.

The Union objected to disclosing the specific financial amounts, arguing they were irrelevant and subject to privacy interests.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that the specific numbers on the tax returns were not arguably relevant to the issues in dispute or to the Employer's potential liability.

The Board ordered the Union to produce redacted tax returns showing only the categories of income and deductions claimed, with all specific numbers and personal information blacked out.

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 requested production of various documents from the employer, including an investigation file, internal emails regarding a manager's behaviour, and records relating to the grievors' absences and accommodation.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the production of the requested emails and accommodation records, but deferred the request for the conciliator's investigation file pending review of the retainer terms.

The employer requested production of the grievors' complete medical files, which the union undertook to obtain, review for relevance, and produce subject to potential redactions.

The Employer brought motions to dismiss a group grievance and a policy grievance concerning overtime pay for transcript preparation, arguing the Union had abandoned identical grievances filed in 1990.

The Employer also moved to strike evidence relating to 1990-1993 settlement discussions on the basis of privilege.

The Grievance Settlement Board denied the motions to dismiss, finding that while the Union's multi-year delay in pursuing the grievances created a rebuttable inference of acquiescence, the specific negotiation history rebutted that inference and the Employer suffered no detriment.

However, the Board granted the motion to strike, ruling that the parties' agreement that their discussions were 'without prejudice or precedent' protected the evidence from being used against the Employer.