170 total
Board's previous direction to restore grievor to full duties remains in effect despite subsequent settlement.
The Union claimed the employer contravened a previous Board direction and subsequent Minutes of Settlement by failing to restore the grievor to full duties as a conservation officer.
The employer argued the previous Board direction was supplanted by the Minutes of Settlement, which did not include an obligation to restore full duties.
The Board found that the Minutes of Settlement did not amend or substitute the previous direction, but rather set out the terms for its implementation.
The Board ruled its previous direction remains in effect subject to the settlement terms.
Board lacks continuing jurisdiction to review new medical information requests based on post-decision events.
The union requested a hearing to direct the employer to withdraw a request for medical information from the grievor's physician.
The employer objected to the Board's jurisdiction, arguing that the request was based on new performance issues that arose after the Board's previous order restoring the grievor to full duties.
The Board upheld the employer's objection, finding that it lacked continuing jurisdiction over new management decisions affecting the grievor, except as they related to compliance with the earlier order.
The union's request was dismissed.
Motion to strike allegations from human rights complaint dismissed; amendment permitted in the alternative.
The respondent Ministry brought a Request for an Order During Proceedings to strike allegations regarding the complainant's suspension and failure to obtain work with a private service provider, arguing they were not part of the original human rights complaint.
The Tribunal found that the allegations were encompassed by the complaint as referred, given the Commission's investigation process.
Alternatively, the Tribunal exercised its discretion to allow an amendment to the complaint, finding no actual prejudice to the respondents and that it would be unfair not to allow the amendment.
Grievance allowed; employer unreasonably denied lateral transfer by considering irrelevant performance issues and failing to investigate compassionate grounds.
The grievor, a Conservation Officer, requested a lateral transfer to a vacant identical position in Vineland to assist his aging parents.
The employer denied the request, concluding it was not based on strong compassionate grounds and citing the grievor's past performance issues.
The Grievance Settlement Board allowed the grievance, finding that the employer failed to reasonably consider the request as required by the collective agreement and lateral transfer policy.
The Board held that the employer unreasonably relied on vague assumptions about the parents' health without seeking clarification, and improperly considered irrelevant performance issues when the grievor was already qualified for the identical position.
The employer was ordered to grant the lateral transfer.
Pilots not entitled to call-back pay for calling into Alert Line on days off.
The Union grieved that pilots were entitled to call-back pay for calling into a pre-recorded Alert Line on their last day off work to learn their next assignment and readiness for active duty.
The Grievance Settlement Board found that while the pilots met the criteria of having left work and having a next scheduled shift, they did not meet the specific criteria in the 1988 Float Agreement, which required them to be performing active fire duties or be on red alert to receive call-back pay.
The grievance for call-back pay was dismissed, though the time spent calling in was found to be overtime.
Employer lacked reasonable grounds to require independent medical examination where past misconduct was treated as culpable.
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.
Arbitrator asserts concurrent jurisdiction over human rights issues and declines to defer to Human Rights Commission.
The union grieved the dismissal of an employee, alleging unjust dismissal tainted by human rights violations.
The grievor had also filed a complaint with the Ontario Human Rights Commission.
The union requested that the arbitration be deferred pending the Commission's hearing, while the employer argued the arbitration should proceed.
The Vice-Chair held that the Grievance Settlement Board has concurrent jurisdiction to interpret and apply the Human Rights Code alongside the Commission.
Because the Commission had not yet scheduled a hearing, the Vice-Chair declined to defer the matter and directed that the arbitration proceed in the ordinary course.
Employer's motion to dismiss grievances based on issue estoppel and prior settlement denied.
The employer brought a motion to dismiss the union's grievances relating to compensation for pilots and co-pilots for being required to call into work prior to their scheduled shift.
The employer argued that the parties had settled this issue in two agreements entered into in April 2004, and therefore the Board lacked jurisdiction based on issue estoppel.
The Board dismissed the motion, finding that the April 2004 agreements settled grievances on a go-forward basis and did not extinguish prior rights.
Furthermore, the issues settled in the agreements were different from the issues before the Board, as they relied on different contracts.
Union's objection sustained; evidence of grievor's strike activity ruled irrelevant and stricken from record.
During an arbitration hearing, the union objected to the introduction of an exhibit and questions regarding the grievor's 2002 strike activity.
The Grievance Settlement Board sustained the objection, ruling that the strike activity was not relevant to the issues in dispute.
Any evidence and particulars regarding the strike activity were ordered stricken from the record.
Hearing adjourned pending an imminent ruling from the Ontario Human Rights Commission on overlapping issues.
The Grievance Settlement Board held a teleconference to consider an adjournment of a scheduled hearing.
The grievor had filed a complaint with the Ontario Human Rights Commission that partially overlapped with the issues before the Board.
The Board ordered the hearing scheduled for January 21, 2008, adjourned pending the imminent release of a ruling from the Commission regarding a potential stay of its proceedings.
Document production ordered subject to strict confidentiality conditions agreed to by the parties.
The union sought an order directing the production of certain documents in a grievance arbitration.
The employer agreed the documents were relevant but raised concerns about their sensitive nature and requested safeguards regarding their use and distribution.
The union did not object to the safeguards.
The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the employer to produce the documents to union counsel, subject to strict confidentiality conditions, including that only union counsel remain in possession of the documents and that they only be viewed by counsel, the instructing client, and the grievor.
Employer's motion to dismiss grievances for mootness denied as live issues regarding compensation remained.
The employer brought a motion to dismiss several grievances on the grounds of mootness, arguing that the underlying issues regarding work assignments and job specifications had been resolved through Minutes of Settlement.
The union opposed the motion, asserting that live issues remained, specifically the claim for retroactive compensation for work performed in a higher classification and the policy issue of assigning duties outside of job specifications.
The Grievance Settlement Board applied the doctrine of mootness and found that the specific claim for compensation and the policy issue had not been resolved by the settlements.
The employer's motion to dismiss was therefore denied, and the grievances were directed to proceed to a hearing on the merits.
Union's renewed request for production of compassionate leave records denied as an impermissible fishing expedition.
The Union renewed its request for production of documents regarding compassionate/special leave granted to staff, providing a list of seven names.
The Vice-Chair denied the request for wholesale disclosure, clarifying an earlier ruling that the Union must point to specific incidents similar to the grievor's situation.
The request was denied for six of the individuals as 'family reasons' was too broad to establish similarity of circumstance, but granted for one individual whose specific reason was identified.
The Vice-Chair also denied the Union's request for additional time to canvass the bargaining unit, characterizing it as an impermissible fishing expedition.
Production of documents ordered for discriminatory assignment claim but denied for broad compassionate leave request.
The Union requested an order for the production of documents relating to grievances alleging discriminatory assignments based on gender and discriminatory refusal of compassionate leave.
The Employer argued the requests were improper fishing expeditions.
The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the Employer to provide access to schedules, assignments, and log books, finding them arguably relevant to the claim of a pattern of discriminatory assignments.
However, the Board denied the request for broad documentation regarding compassionate leave granted to other staff, as the Union failed to point to specific similar incidents.
Employer's motion to dismiss granted in part; two grievances dismissed for insufficient particulars, three proceed.
The employer brought a motion to dismiss five grievances on the grounds that the union failed to provide particulars in compliance with a prior Board order.
The Board reviewed the particulars provided by the union for each grievance.
The Board found that the union failed to provide sufficient particulars for two group grievances (the 'Joan Gates' and 'Paul Wilson' grievances) and dismissed them.
However, the Board found that the particulars provided for three union grievances (regarding meal breaks, job postings/temporary assignments, and overtime payments) were sufficient to apprise the employer of the case it had to meet, and allowed those grievances to proceed, with evidence restricted to the particularized instances in one case.
Employer's motion for non-suit dismissed as union established a prima facie case.
The employer brought a motion for non-suit after the union closed its case in a grievance arbitration.
The Grievance Settlement Board reviewed the principles governing non-suit motions, noting that the responding party need only establish a prima facie case and that the moving party would not be put to an election in this instance.
Finding that the union had met the standard of a prima facie case, the Board dismissed the employer's motion for non-suit.
Grievance seeking new accommodation dismissed as barred by a valid prior settlement agreement.
The grievor, a former Correctional Officer with permanent physical restrictions, was accommodated as a Records Clerk in 1998 pursuant to a grievance settlement.
In 2005, he filed a new grievance seeking to be accommodated in his pre-injury position of Correctional Officer, arguing the duty to accommodate is ongoing.
The employer brought a preliminary motion arguing the 1998 settlement barred the current grievance.
The Grievance Settlement Board allowed the employer's motion and dismissed the grievance, finding that the 1998 settlement was valid, did not conflict with the Human Rights Code, and exhausted the grievor's accommodation rights absent a change in his medical condition or workplace circumstances.
Employer's motion granted; withdrawn and abandoned grievances dismissed, and evidence of settled or old matters excluded.
The Employer brought a motion to dismiss several grievances and limit the scope of evidence in an arbitration concerning alleged gender discrimination and harassment.
The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed two grievances that had been previously withdrawn by the Union, finding it lacked jurisdiction to hear them.
A third grievance from 1990 was dismissed as abandoned due to a 16-year delay.
The Board also granted the Employer's motion to exclude evidence regarding previously settled grievances and events occurring more than three years prior to the current grievances, concluding that admitting such evidence would undermine the finality of settlements and prejudice the Employer.
Grievance dismissed on preliminary objection; no prima facie breach of employment terms regarding managerial pay.
The employer brought a preliminary objection to dismiss the grievance without a hearing on the merits.
The grievor, a manager, claimed that the employer's pay policies resulted in newly promoted managers earning more than him, which he argued was unfair and discriminatory.
The Board found that even assuming the grievor's facts were true, he failed to identify a specific term or condition of employment that had been breached.
The general policy statements regarding fairness did not constitute a promise of a specific wage level or guarantee that later-promoted managers would not earn more.
The preliminary objection was granted and the grievance was dismissed.
Employer's claims of Wigmore privilege over internal labour relations communications dismissed in document production motion.
The union sought production of documents in a grievance arbitration.
The employer claimed solicitor-client privilege, litigation privilege, and Wigmore privilege over numerous internal communications.
The Vice-Chair reviewed the documents, upholding solicitor-client and litigation privilege for communications involving legal advice or prepared for the dominant purpose of litigation.
However, the Vice-Chair dismissed the employer's claims of Wigmore privilege over internal labour relations and human resources communications, finding that the benefit of resolving disputes based on a fair and open process outweighed any injury to internal communications.
