George Parris

The grievor sought compensation for travel time and expenses incurred during his assignment to the Ontario Correctional Institute (OCI) before being transferred to his preferred location, Maplehurst Correctional Complex.

The grievor argued that a flawed 2001 mass competition delayed his assignment to Maplehurst, making his time at OCI a temporary assignment for which travel expenses should be paid.

The Public Service Grievance Board dismissed the claim, finding no causal connection between the flawed competition and the travel expenses incurred, as the evidence did not establish that the grievor would have been assigned to Maplehurst earlier had the competition been conducted properly.

The Employer brought a motion to limit the scope of two grievances to the specific events described therein, while the Union sought an interim ruling for the disclosure of investigation reports and interview notes.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the Employer's motion, finding the grievances were sufficiently broad to encompass the broader allegations of discrimination, reprisal, and harassment.

The Board granted the Union's request for disclosure, determining the documents were arguably relevant to the issues raised, but imposed strict confidentiality conditions to prevent workplace divisiveness.

The parties reached a memorandum of agreement regarding the application of holiday provisions to part-time employees under the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued a consent order incorporating the memorandum of agreement, which clarified that the holiday provisions in section 58 of Regulation 977 of the Public Service Act do not apply to part-time employees, and that a previous decision of the Board shall not be relied upon as precedent.

In a grievance arbitration concerning the grievor's termination, the employer sought an adjournment to apply to family court to lift or amend a sealing order on a Children's Lawyer report.

The employer argued the report was integral to its decision to terminate the grievor.

The union opposed the adjournment, citing delay and the unlikelihood of the employer's success in family court.

The arbitrator granted the adjournment, finding that the delay would not materially prejudice the grievor given the overall length of the proceedings, and that the employer would be prejudiced if denied the opportunity to seek access to a document it relied upon in its decision-making.

The Grievance Settlement Board directed the union and the employer to continue abiding by the terms of a previously agreed protocol regarding document production.

The union was directed to secure and provide copies of arguably relevant documents to the employer by April 30, 2006, after which the employer would have 30 days to identify any outstanding production issues.

During a teleconference call, the Union sought disclosure of particulars and documents relating to the employer's investigation of workplace accommodations for the grievor, as well as information on specific job vacancies.

The Vice-Chair of the Grievance Settlement Board ruled that all the requested information was arguably relevant and ordered it to be exchanged prior to the next mediation date.

The Union brought a preliminary motion seeking an order that the Employer proceed first in a grievance alleging failure to accommodate.

The Union argued the Employer possessed the relevant information regarding its reasons for failing to accommodate.

The Employer contended that essential facts regarding the nature of the disability and the adequacy of the accommodation provided were in dispute and within the grievor's knowledge.

The Grievance Settlement Board agreed with the Employer, finding that because the essential elements of the facts were in dispute, the Union must proceed first to call evidence on the merits.

The grievor filed a grievance claiming entitlement to ongoing travel time, mileage, and lunches between his home in Oshawa and the Mimico Correctional Institute, retroactive to October 20, 2003.

The employer argued the grievance was out of time, but the Board ruled it a continuing grievance.

On the merits, the Board found that the grievor's normal place of work was Mimico, and he was not entitled to travel expenses under the applicable regulations or policies.

The grievance was dismissed.

The grievor, an Information Officer 3, grieved the outcome of a job competition for a Communications Officer position, arguing she should have been awarded the position as the senior applicant and that the competition was flawed.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that while the employer's exclusive reliance on interview scores and a writing assignment—without reviewing resumes, personnel files, or conducting reference checks for all interviewed candidates—constituted a procedural flaw, the union failed to prove that these flaws affected the outcome.

The successful candidates provided more detailed, sophisticated answers and demonstrated more directly relevant experience.

The grievance was dismissed.

In a discharge arbitration, the union brought a motion to exclude a report by the Office of the Children's Lawyer that the employer had relied upon in its decision to terminate the grievor.

The report was part of a family court file that was subsequently sealed by a Superior Court judge.

The employer argued that because it had obtained and relied on the report before the sealing order was made, the report should be admissible to provide a complete picture of the termination decision.

The arbitrator held that the arbitration is a public proceeding and the sealing order must be respected.

The report and any viva voce evidence regarding its contents were ruled inadmissible.