24 total
Grievances dismissed for abuse of process due to grievor's repeated failure to comply with interim orders.
The employer brought a motion to dismiss the grievor's grievances for abuse of process and failure to comply with interim orders.
The grievor had repeatedly refused to comply with the arbitrator's directions to attend at the union's office with her counsel to be cross-examined via teleconference, citing medical reasons but failing to provide adequate medical documentation to support her refusal.
The arbitrator found that the grievor's conduct was intentional, deliberate, and manipulative, demonstrating a total unwillingness to accept the arbitrator's authority.
The motion was granted and the grievances were dismissed for abuse of process.
Arbitrator directed parties to agree on letters to grievor's doctors for medical information.
In a grievance arbitration, the Arbitrator directed the parties to confer and agree upon letters to be sent to the grievor's family doctor and a specialist.
The Arbitrator ordered that once the letters were agreed upon, they would be appended to an order directing the doctors to respond.
The Arbitrator also granted the employer's request to make future submissions on whether the grievances should be dismissed.
Grievance allowed; 20-day suspension declared null and void due to unreasonable delay in investigation.
The grievor received a 20-day suspension nearly two years after the alleged misconduct.
The union brought a preliminary motion arguing the delay was unreasonable.
The employer argued the delay was due to insufficient staffing and workload issues.
The arbitrator found the employer's reasons invalid and noted the inherent prejudice to the grievor, who was unaware her conduct was being questioned.
The motion was upheld, the discipline was declared null and void, and the employer was ordered to reimburse the grievor for the suspension.
Grievances regarding salary grid placement of new hires dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and no prima facie case.
The Union filed grievances alleging the Employer violated the collective agreement by placing newly hired Inspectors at Step 4 of the salary scale instead of Step 1.
The Employer brought a motion to dismiss the grievances for lack of jurisdiction and failure to make out a prima facie case.
The Arbitrator found no prima facie case of discrimination based on union membership, as the placement decisions did not correlate with union status.
Furthermore, the Arbitrator held that the Board lacked jurisdiction to review the Employer's exercise of management rights because the Union failed to identify any express or implied collective agreement provision impacted by the placement of new hires at Step 4.
The grievances were dismissed.
Employer's motion to strike particulars granted; adding new discrimination grounds constituted improper expansion of grievance.
The employer brought a preliminary motion to strike certain particulars provided by the union in a grievance alleging discrimination.
The original grievance and discussions at the formal resolution stage meeting focused on discrimination based on union activity, denial of compassionate leave, and vacation treatment.
The union later provided particulars adding allegations of discrimination based on religion and ancestry, including incidents from a 2014 party.
The arbitrator held that adding new grounds of discrimination constituted an improper expansion of the grievance, as the grievor had made a deliberate choice to grieve only anti-union discrimination initially.
The allegations regarding the 2014 party were also struck as untimely.
The employer's motion was granted in part, and the union was directed to provide proper dates for remaining allegations.
Hearing adjourned for six months due to grievor's medical inability to attend union office for cross-examination.
The grievor had previously been granted accommodation to participate in the arbitration hearing via teleconference due to medical reasons.
In a subsequent interim decision, the arbitrator directed the grievor to attend the union's office to continue her teleconference participation so that the employer could complete its cross-examination.
The grievor provided a medical note indicating she was unable to comply with this direction.
To ensure a full and fair hearing, the arbitrator adjourned the matter for six months or until the grievor is fit to attend the union's office, with the possibility of dismissing the grievances if she remains unable to continue.
Disruptive grievor ordered to participate in teleconference hearing from union office with counsel present.
In an ongoing grievance arbitration involving allegations of harassment and unjust dismissal, the grievor had previously been granted an accommodation to participate via teleconference due to medical reasons.
During cross-examination, the grievor was highly disruptive, argumentative, and rude.
The arbitrator determined that the current teleconference arrangement was no longer feasible.
To continue accommodating the grievor's medical needs while ensuring the hearing could proceed properly, the arbitrator ordered that the grievor may continue to participate via teleconference, but must do so from the union's office in the physical presence of her counsel.
Employer representative excluded from hearing room during grievor's testimony as medical accommodation, but permitted video observation.
During an arbitration hearing, the union brought a motion to exclude the employer's representative, the grievor's former manager, from the hearing room during the grievor's testimony.
The union argued that the manager's presence triggered the grievor's anxiety and stress, relying on medical notes from her physician.
The employer opposed the motion, arguing the manager's presence was necessary to instruct counsel.
The arbitrator found that the grievor had a medically supported restriction requiring accommodation.
Balancing the competing interests, the arbitrator ordered that the manager be excluded from the hearing room but permitted to observe the proceedings via a live video and audio feed from another room, satisfying the medical restriction while minimizing prejudice to the employer.
Union's request for additional document production partially granted; overly broad requests denied as fishing expedition.
In a grievance arbitration involving allegations of harassment, discrimination, and reprisals, the union sought an order for the production of sixteen additional documents.
The employer opposed the request, arguing it was untimely, overly burdensome, and amounted to a fishing expedition.
The arbitrator applied the established test for disclosure, noting that while a liberal approach is generally endorsed, the requested information must be arguably relevant to the issues in dispute.
The arbitrator found that the union's request for most of the documents crossed the boundary into a fishing expedition, as it sought every document mentioning the grievor without demonstrating relevance to the specific allegations.
The arbitrator ordered the production of five items and denied the rest.
Employer's motion to strike paragraphs from will-say statement granted based on res judicata.
The Employer brought a motion to strike several paragraphs from the Union's will-say statement in a grievance arbitration concerning harassment and failure to accommodate.
The impugned paragraphs contained allegations that had been the subject of earlier grievances dismissed by another arbitrator.
The Union argued the earlier decision was not on the merits and that the new grievances included a failure to accommodate claim.
The Arbitrator held that the prior decision was a final determination on the merits regarding those specific harassment allegations.
Applying the doctrine of res judicata, the Arbitrator granted the Employer's motion and struck the paragraphs from the will-say statement to prevent relitigation of previously decided matters.
Arbitrator orders production of confidential workplace restoration report and permits evidence in chief via will-say statement.
The Union sought production of a confidential workplace restoration report and related documents, and requested that the grievor be permitted to adduce her evidence in chief by way of a will-say statement.
The Employer opposed both requests, arguing the report was confidential and not arguably relevant, and that oral testimony was required for credibility assessment.
The Arbitrator ordered production of the report with strict confidentiality restrictions, finding it arguably relevant for cross-examination or corroboration.
The Arbitrator also permitted the use of a will-say statement to improve efficiency, granting the same option to the Employer.
Grievor's request to attend hearing via teleconference due to medical reasons granted.
The grievor, who had filed grievances alleging harassment and unjust dismissal, requested to attend the hearing via teleconference due to medical reasons, specifically anxiety and an inability to speak in front of people.
The employer opposed the request and brought a motion to disallow it, arguing that the nature of the issues required in-person attendance.
The arbitrator granted the grievor's request, finding that the medical documentation established a sufficient need for accommodation, though noting the decision might need to be revisited as the hearing progressed.
Grievor ordered to provide detailed medical information to justify attending arbitration via teleconference.
The Union requested that the grievor be permitted to attend the arbitration hearings via teleconference for medical reasons.
The Employer objected and brought a motion to compel her in-person attendance, citing credibility concerns in a harassment dispute.
The Arbitrator found the initial medical note insufficient and ordered the Union to provide specific questions to the grievor's physician regarding her medical restrictions and the expected duration of her inability to attend in person.
Failure to provide the requested information would result in the Employer's motion being granted.
Employer's motion to exclude evidence predating the grievance by more than three years granted.
The employer brought a preliminary motion to limit the scope of evidence the union could introduce regarding a poisoned workplace grievance.
The employer argued for the application of the Board's 'three-year rule' to exclude evidence of events dating back to 2008.
The union argued that the historical evidence provided necessary context.
The Arbitrator granted the employer's motion, finding that a four-year gap between the historical allegations and more recent events rendered the older evidence of tenuous relevance and would cause undue prejudice to the employer.
Evidence was limited to the three-year period predating the first grievance.
Public service grievance dismissed for lack of jurisdiction due to failure to meet mandatory 14-day notice requirement.
The complainant, a public servant, filed a complaint regarding the adequacy and fairness of her salary.
The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the complaint on the basis that the complainant failed to give notice of her intention to file the complaint to her Deputy Minister within 14 days of becoming aware of the issue, as required by s. 8(4) of Regulation 378/07 under the Public Service of Ontario Act.
The complainant conceded that her notice was filed outside the 14-day window following her last conversation with management about a potential salary increase.
The Board held that the time limits in the Regulation are mandatory and it has no jurisdiction to relieve against them.
The employer's motion was allowed and the complaint was dismissed.
Parties in unjust termination grievance ordered to exchange particulars and will-say statements.
In a grievance arbitration concerning an allegation of unjust termination, the Employer requested particulars from the Union.
The Union resisted, arguing the Employer should provide particulars first.
The Arbitrator ordered both parties to exchange particulars and will-say statements on a set schedule prior to the hearing dates.
Human rights application deferred pending completion of concurrent grievance process.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination against her employer and union.
The respondents requested that the application be deferred because the issues were already the subject of ongoing grievances before the Grievance Settlement Board.
The Tribunal found substantial overlap between the facts and human rights issues in both proceedings.
Despite the applicant's concerns about the union's representation, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process to avoid concurrent proceedings and inconsistent decisions.
Board lacks jurisdiction to award damages for compensable workplace injuries due to WSIA statutory bar.
The employer brought a preliminary motion arguing the Grievance Settlement Board lacked jurisdiction to award damages to the grievor for a compensable workplace injury.
The grievor, a Court Services Officer, was injured during a physical altercation between litigants and received WSIB benefits.
The union grieved that the employer failed to provide a safe working environment and sought damages for lost wages, credits, and pain and suffering.
The Board granted the employer's motion, following previous jurisprudence which held that section 26(2) of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act precludes the Board from awarding damages for a compensable injury.
The union was permitted to proceed with its claims for declaratory and directory relief.
Procedural directions issued for exchange of particulars and document production in job posting grievance.
In a job posting grievance where the grievor was screened out, the parties were unable to resolve the matter through mediation.
As the exchange of particulars and production had not been completed, the Vice-Chair issued procedural directions ordering the Employer and the Union to exchange full particulars and produce relevant documents prior to the hearing.
The hearing was scheduled to be completed in one day with strict time limits for each party's presentation.
Grievance regarding job competition resolved by consent order.
The union filed a grievance regarding a job competition for a Financial Officer 2 position.
Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.
The Grievance Settlement Board issued a consent order terminating the proceedings on the agreed terms, which included the employer screening the grievor in and permitting her to write the pre-interview test for one eligible future competition.
