Gurjit Brar

The union filed a grievance asserting that the newly created position of Category Lead should be included in the bargaining unit.

The employer argued that the position was properly excluded under the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act because the duties and responsibilities created a conflict of interest.

The Category Lead's primary function involves investigating, assessing, and recommending strategic procurement options, which may include outsourcing work currently performed by bargaining unit members.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that these duties placed the Category Leads in a conflict of interest with being members of the bargaining unit, as they must be free to assess all options without regard to the potential impact on coworkers.

The grievance was dismissed.

The Union filed a policy grievance regarding the placement of Workwell Evaluators on a new salary grid following a job reclassification.

The position was moved up one salary grade, from an eight-step grid to a four-step grid.

The Employer placed employees on the new grid at the first step that provided a wage increase, arguing that the collective agreement's requirement to adjust salaries to the 'same step' could not be applied because the new grid had fewer steps.

The Grievance Settlement Board allowed the grievance, finding that Salary Rule 6 requires the Employer to use each employee's job start date and apply the step time frames of the new salary grade to determine their placement, ensuring equal treatment and reflecting the value of the reclassified job.

The union filed a job-posting grievance after the grievor was denied an interview for a permanent bilingual Claims Investigator position.

The employer claimed she did not meet the minimum requirements for investigation skills.

The grievor argued she had been treated as a preliminary candidate in a prior temporary posting and relied on the hiring manager's advice to her detriment.

The arbitrator found the manager's assessment process lacked rigour and preferred the grievor's evidence.

The arbitrator concluded the grievor was a preliminary candidate and ordered that she be assessed for the permanent position.

The union filed six grievances relating to the evaluation of benchmark jobs under the parties' job evaluation system, seeking to have the Grievance Settlement Board resolve the valuation of disputed sub-factors.

The employer raised a preliminary objection, arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction under section 51 of the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act (CECBA), which prohibits the Board from altering an existing classification.

The Board upheld the preliminary objection, finding that determining the appropriate point level for sub-factors would effectively alter the classification of the jobs, which it is statutorily prohibited from doing.

The grievances were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The grievor, a payment specialist at the WSIB, was terminated under Article 13.05 of the collective agreement for being absent without a justifiable reason for more than ten consecutive working days.

The grievor had requested an extension of her leave due to work-related stress, but failed to provide sufficient medical evidence.

The employer sent letters to her home address requiring her to return to work or provide medical evidence, but she was out of the country and did not receive them.

The arbitrator found that the grievor had a justifiable reason for her absence because she reasonably expected the employer to contact her by cell phone regarding her leave request.

The termination was set aside, and a one-month unpaid suspension was substituted for her failure to properly communicate and return to work.