170 total
Adjournment granted due to union counsel's scheduling conflict with an arbitration hearing.
The union respondent requested an adjournment of a summary hearing because its counsel was required to attend an arbitration hearing on the same date.
The employer respondent consented to the request, and the applicant did not respond.
The Tribunal found that the circumstances justified a brief adjournment and directed the applicant to provide available dates for rescheduling.
Applicant permitted to withdraw human rights applications at summary hearing stage.
The applicant filed human rights applications alleging discrimination on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, sex, and reprisal.
Following interim decisions that dismissed parts of the applications due to delay, a summary hearing was convened to determine if the remaining aspects had a reasonable prospect of success.
During the hearing, the applicant requested to withdraw the remaining parts of her applications.
The Province did not oppose the withdrawal, while the Association of Law Officers of the Crown opposed it.
The Tribunal granted the applicant's request to withdraw the applications, noting that no responses had been filed and no prejudice was established.
Application for judicial review dismissed; employment ended by mutual agreement, precluding statutory termination benefits.
The applicant sought judicial review of a Public Service Grievance Board decision denying him statutory benefits for terminated or laid-off employees.
The Divisional Court upheld the Board's finding that the applicant's employment ended by mutual agreement and in exchange for valuable consideration, rather than by termination or layoff.
The application was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.
Medical records disclosure ordered back to 1998 to establish health baseline in grievance arbitration.
In a grievance arbitration, the parties agreed on consent to the disclosure of the grievor's medical and long-term disability records, subject to conditions regarding review and copying by the employer's counsel.
The parties disputed the time frame for disclosure.
The employer sought records dating back to December 11, 1998, to establish a baseline of the grievor's health, while the union argued for December 11, 1999.
The Grievance Settlement Board ordered disclosure from December 11, 1998, and further ordered that any medical documents marked as exhibits be sealed at the close of the proceedings.
Grievance dismissed for lack of jurisdiction under Part VI and failure to meet statutory preconditions.
The complainant filed a grievance alleging improper removal from a temporary acting assignment and exclusion from a permanent position competition due to racial bias.
The complaint was filed under Part VI of the Public Service of Ontario Act, which deals with reprisals for disclosing wrongdoing.
The employer raised preliminary objections, arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction under Part VI because there was no allegation of reprisal, and alternatively, that the complaint failed to meet the statutory preconditions for a regular terms and conditions grievance under O. Reg. 378/07.
The Board agreed, finding no reprisal occurred to ground jurisdiction under Part VI, and that the mandatory notice and dispute resolution preconditions for a regular grievance were bypassed.
The complaint was dismissed.
Tribunal adds union as respondent and removes personal respondents in workplace discrimination application.
The applicant filed a human rights application against his former employer, the Ministry of Children & Youth Services, and 16 personal respondents, alleging discrimination and reprisal.
The applicant subsequently requested to add his union, OPSEU, as a respondent, alleging it failed to facilitate accommodation and address a poisoned work environment.
The Tribunal granted the request to add OPSEU, finding allegations that could support a Code violation.
The Tribunal also removed all 16 personal respondents, noting the corporate respondents could be held vicariously liable and had the ability to remedy any proven infringements.
Electronic Monitoring Officers denied Custodial Responsibility Allowance as they do not direct offenders in beneficial labour.
The Union filed grievances on behalf of Electronic Monitoring Officers (EMOs) claiming entitlement to the Custodial Responsibility Allowance (CRA) under the collective agreement.
The CRA requires employees to direct offenders engaged in beneficial labour for a major portion of their working time.
The Grievance Settlement Board found that EMOs spend the vast majority of their time monitoring offenders in the community to ensure compliance with release conditions, rather than directing offenders engaged in labour beneficial to the institution.
The grievances were dismissed.
Grievor's requests for vacation pay without deductions and compensation for severance pay deductions dismissed.
The parties sought the assistance of the Grievance Settlement Board to resolve issues regarding the implementation of Minutes of Settlement.
The grievor claimed entitlement to a payout of vacation credits without deductions to compensate for delayed implementation, and requested the Employer pay an amount equal to the deductions made from her severance pay because it failed to deposit the payment into her RSP account.
The Vice-Chair directed the Employer to pay the vacation pay less normal statutory deductions, and dismissed the claim regarding the severance pay deductions, finding the grievor failed to raise the issue in a timely manner and could not repay the initial deposit to allow the Employer to comply with her direction.
Motion to restrict scope of evidence granted in part; usual three-year rule relaxed due to unique circumstances.
The employer brought two preliminary motions to restrict the scope of evidence in grievances alleging workplace discrimination and harassment.
The first motion sought to exclude evidence from December 2000 to February 2001 for a 2003 grievance; the Vice-Chair found this motion premature.
The second motion sought to limit evidence for 2009 grievances to three years prior to filing.
The Vice-Chair held that evidence predating a 2001 settlement was inadmissible, but allowed evidence from December 11, 2000 onwards, departing from the usual three-year rule due to the grievor's lengthy absence on long-term disability and the overlapping nature of the complaints.
Employer's motion to dismiss grievances for delay denied due to abeyance agreement between parties.
The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss two grievances alleging breach of Board orders, human rights, health and safety, and collective agreement provisions, arguing they were not referred to the Board in a timely fashion.
The union argued the parties had agreed to hold the grievances in abeyance pending settlement.
The Vice-Chair denied the motion, finding that dismissing the grievances would be a denial of natural justice given the abeyance agreement, the lack of prejudice to the employer, and the importance of allowing parties to rely on good faith agreements during settlement negotiations.
Employer's non-suit motion granted; union failed to establish prima facie case of workplace harassment and discrimination.
The union filed a grievance alleging that the grievor's manager subjected him to a pattern of harassment and discrimination on the basis of disability.
At the conclusion of the union's case, the employer brought a motion for non-suit.
The Grievance Settlement Board applied the test for non-suit motions, assuming the union's evidence to be true and drawing all reasonable inferences in its favour.
The Board found that the evidence, which primarily consisted of the grievor's subjective belief that his manager's actions were malicious and his disagreement with her management style and interpretation of procedures, was insufficient to establish a prima facie case of harassment or discrimination.
The motion for non-suit was granted and the grievance was dismissed.
Employer's motion to dismiss grievance for delay denied due to medical evidence explaining the delay.
The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the employee's 2003 grievance, arguing it had been abandoned due to a lack of action until May 2008.
The union argued the delay was due to the grievor receiving LTD and being too ill to proceed, and that the employer had not shown prejudice.
The Vice-Chair denied the motion, finding that while the delay was considerable, the medical evidence explained it and the employer provided no evidence of actual prejudice, making it equitable to allow a hearing on the merits.
First day of hearing moved to St. Catharines to accommodate grievor's alleged medical travel restrictions.
The union requested a change of venue for the arbitration hearing from Toronto to St. Catharines/Thorold, citing the grievor's medical condition that allegedly restricted his travel.
The employer opposed the request, arguing the medical evidence only restricted the grievor from driving, not from taking public transit.
The Grievance Settlement Board applied a balance of convenience test, noting that denying the venue change could effectively deny the grievor a hearing if his medical claims were true.
The Board ordered the first day of the hearing to be held in St. Catharines or Thorold, with the venue for any subsequent days to be determined later.
Mutual requests for document production granted to allow use of documents from a prior proceeding.
The parties each sought the production of documents from one another that had already been produced in a separate proceeding before the Grievance Settlement Board.
The prior production was subject to an implied undertaking that the documents only be used for the purposes of that case.
As neither party objected to the request, the Vice-Chair directed the production of the documents, effectively allowing the prior production to be used for the purposes of the instant case.
Board asserts jurisdiction over grievor on LTIP and limits evidence predating prior settlement.
The employer brought two preliminary motions in a grievance arbitration.
The first motion sought to dismiss the grievances for lack of jurisdiction, arguing the grievor was a member of the OPPA bargaining unit, not OPSEU, following a certification order.
The board dismissed this motion, finding that because the grievor was on Long Term Income Protection (LTIP) at the time of the transfer, her status was suspended and she remained in the OPSEU bargaining unit.
The second motion sought to exclude evidence of events occurring prior to a 2001 Minutes of Settlement.
The board granted this motion in part, excluding evidence prior to the December 11, 2000 grievances settled by the MOS, as there were no exceptional circumstances to justify piercing the settlement, but declined to categorically exclude evidence between the grievance date and the signing of the MOS.
Union's request to adduce similar fact evidence of manager's conduct towards another employee denied.
During a grievance hearing alleging harassment and discrimination by a manager, the union sought to call another employee to provide similar fact evidence regarding the manager's interference with decision-making authority.
The employer objected.
The Grievance Settlement Board ruled the evidence inadmissible, finding that it raised unparticularized allegations that would prejudice the employer and unduly prolong the hearing.
The Board also held that the proposed similar fact evidence lacked relevance beyond showing propensity, and its admission would inappropriately require the Board to make findings of fact on un-grieved allegations concerning another employee.
Employer's particulars failed to establish a prima facie case justifying non-compliance with order to return grievor to full duties.
The union brought a motion alleging that the employer's particulars did not establish a prima facie case justifying its failure to comply with a prior Board order and Minutes of Settlement requiring the grievor to be returned to full duties as a Conservation Officer.
The employer argued it had justifiable grounds, citing the need for training, alleged inappropriate conduct, and health and safety concerns raised by co-workers.
The Grievance Settlement Board found that the employer could not unilaterally impose new conditions for the return to work and that subsequent events did not justify non-compliance with the legal obligation to restore the grievor to full duties.
The motion was granted, and the employer was directed to restore the grievor to full duties.
Settlement of prior failure to accommodate grievance did not preclude subsequent grievance alleging workplace harassment.
The employer raised a preliminary objection that the union's grievance alleging workplace harassment and failure to accommodate was precluded by the settlement of a previous grievance.
The previous grievance had alleged a failure to accommodate based on family status.
The current grievance alleged harassment by a manager, including conduct related to the denial of accommodation requests.
The arbitrator held that the settlement of the previous grievance only precluded claims for remedies arising directly from the failure to accommodate, and did not preclude claims for redress for harassment, even if that harassment occurred in the context of responding to accommodation requests.
Employer's motion to dismiss grievance for lack of prima facie case denied as untimely.
The employer brought a motion to dismiss the grievance on the basis that the particulars provided by the union did not disclose a prima facie violation of the collective agreement or the Human Rights Code.
The motion was brought after the union had commenced its case and its first witness was testifying.
The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the motion as untimely, finding that a motion based on inadequate particulars must be brought prior to the commencement of the union's evidence, while a non-suit motion can only be brought after the union has closed its case.
Prior Board order to return grievor to full duties remains in effect despite subsequent settlement.
The Union claimed the Employer contravened a prior Board direction and Minutes of Settlement by failing to restore the grievor to full duties as a conservation officer.
The Employer argued the prior Board direction was supplanted by the Minutes of Settlement, which did not explicitly require a return to full duties.
The Board determined as a preliminary jurisdictional issue that the prior direction to return the grievor to full duties remained in effect, subject to the terms of the Minutes of Settlement, as there was no clear agreement to override the Board's order.
