Ian Fellows

The union filed a policy grievance arguing that seven newly created positions should be included in the bargaining unit.

The Board found it was functus officio regarding the union's argument on the scope of the recognition clause, as that issue had been previously decided.

On the alternative argument that the positions performed bargaining unit work, the Board examined the Customer Care Coordinator (CCC) and Project Officer (PO) positions.

The Board dismissed the grievance regarding the CCC position, finding its core functions differed significantly from the Station Attendant position.

However, the Board upheld the grievance regarding the PO position, finding its duties were substantially similar to the bargaining unit Project Coordinator position, thereby drawing it into the bargaining unit.

The union requested that the Grievance Settlement Board order the employer to recall two witnesses who had already completed their testimony.

The union argued that the witnesses had given contradictory testimony in a separate proceeding before a different arbitrator regarding their use of an internal document to determine whether positions were excluded from the bargaining unit.

The employer opposed the request, arguing that the document related only to statutory exclusions for confidential duties, which was not the basis of the union's claim.

The Arbitrator dismissed the union's request, finding that the witnesses' prior testimony was not strictly contradictory and that recalling them for cross-examination on the document would not serve a useful purpose, as the union's claim relied on similarity to existing bargaining unit positions rather than statutory exclusions.

The applicants' motion for leave to appeal an order denying an interlocutory injunction was previously dismissed on jurisdictional grounds.

The respondent sought costs on a substantial indemnity scale, arguing the applicants unnecessarily ran up costs by pursuing the motion despite being warned the appeal route was to the Court of Appeal.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs, finding the jurisdictional issue was not straightforward.

Costs were fixed at $20,000 on a partial indemnity basis, reflecting the complexity of the jurisdictional issue and the need for the respondent to address the merits of the leave motion.

The applicants sought leave to appeal an order denying their application for an interlocutory injunction to prevent the respondent from implementing random drug and alcohol testing pending a grievance arbitration.

The respondent argued the Divisional Court lacked jurisdiction because the order was final, not interlocutory.

The court agreed, finding that because the injunction was sought by way of an application, the dismissal of that application finally determined the proceeding.

Consequently, the order was final and any appeal lies to the Court of Appeal.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

The employer requested to bifurcate the proceeding to hear a preliminary legal argument regarding the scope of the bargaining unit.

The Grievance Settlement Board had previously denied a similar request.

The employer argued that changed circumstances, specifically particulars provided by the union and the filing of two new policy grievances, warranted reconsideration.

The Board declined to exercise its discretion to bifurcate, citing policy concerns about halting proceedings midstream for reconsideration based on changed circumstances, and finding that the criteria for bifurcation were not substantially met as a favorable decision for the employer would not dispose of the entire grievance.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to bifurcate the proceeding, arguing that the Board should first determine its motion that the Board was functus officio regarding the scope of the bargaining unit before hearing the merits of the grievance relating to the inclusion/exclusion of seven specific positions.

The union opposed bifurcation.

The Board reviewed the arbitral jurisprudence on bifurcation and concluded that while the preliminary issue was separate and distinct from the merits, bifurcating the proceeding would not result in any saving of time or resources, nor would it dispose of the entire grievance.

The Board declined to exercise its discretion to bifurcate the proceeding and directed that all issues be heard together.

The union filed a policy grievance alleging the employer failed to recognize certain positions as falling within the bargaining unit.

The parties asked the Board to interpret the recognition clause.

The Board held that the recognition clause did not create an 'all employee' bargaining unit, but was limited to the classifications specified in the schedules or developed under article 9.

However, the Board found that the general exclusion of 'office and technical staff' was inserted by mistake during drafting and did not reflect the parties' agreement.

The Board applied the doctrine of rectification to remove the general exclusion of office and technical staff from the collective agreement.

The applicant filed human rights applications against her employer, the Toronto Transit Commission, and her union, alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

The respondents requested a summary hearing to dismiss the applications for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations regarding the termination of the applicant's employment and all allegations against the union, finding no evidence linking the respondents' actions to the applicant's disability.

However, the Tribunal allowed the allegation regarding a delayed wage increase to continue in the Tribunal process.

The respondent employer filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking the production of the applicant's unredacted medical records dating back to 1997.

The applicant opposed the request, arguing the redacted information was not arguably relevant and production would violate her privacy.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had made her health arguably relevant through her testimony.

The Tribunal ordered the production of unredacted medical records, but limited the temporal scope to the period from September 2004, when the applicant first referenced her health, to February 2013, her last day of testimony.

The union filed a policy grievance regarding the employer's failure to recognize certain positions as bargaining unit positions.

The employer brought a preliminary motion arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction because the union referred the grievance to arbitration outside the mandatory time limits.

The union conceded the referral was late but argued the employer waived its right to object.

The Board found that the employer continued to discuss the merits of the grievance with the union for over two years without ever raising the timeliness issue, only objecting on the eve of the arbitration hearing.

The Board concluded the employer's conduct amounted to a waiver of the time limits and dismissed the employer's motion.

The union filed a policy grievance arguing that the employer was estopped from changing its practice regarding pension contributions for full-time employees on short, unpaid, non-statutory leaves.

Previously, employees paid only their portion of the contribution, but following a correction by OMERS, employees were required to pay both their own and the employer's contribution to buy back service.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the union failed to establish the criteria for estoppel.

The board noted that the collective agreement did not address the issue, the employer's past practice was an administrative error based on a misunderstanding of the OMERS plan, and the new rule was not unconscionable as employees could opt out of buying back service.

The grievor, a bus driver, was terminated for texting on her cell phone while driving a bus with passengers.

The union grieved the termination, arguing the penalty was excessive and seeking a lesser penalty.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the grievor had a prior disciplinary record for the same offence, had signed a condition of continued employment, and demonstrated a lack of remorse and dishonesty throughout the investigation and hearing.

The termination was upheld.

During a grievance arbitration regarding the termination of a bus driver for texting while driving, the Union objected to the admission of the grievor's cell phone records.

The Employer had obtained the records from Rogers via a subpoena issued by the Board, but had excused the Rogers representative from attending the hearing.

The Union argued this was litigation by ambush, a violation of PIPEDA, and an abuse of process.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the objections, finding that the records were arguably relevant, obtained under a valid subpoena (which satisfies PIPEDA exceptions), and that the procedure used did not constitute an abuse of process.

During an arbitration hearing, an issue arose regarding a summons issued to Rogers, the delivery of requested documents to the employer's counsel, and the employer's failure to produce those records to the union.

The union requested an adjournment.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the employer to provide the union with a copy of the summons, details of any communications with Rogers regarding the summons, and the dates of service and receipt of documents.

The Board also permitted the union to confer with the grievor on this issue only.

The union grieved that the grievor was not paid the correct premium for working on a statutory holiday.

The union argued that working on a statutory holiday constituted overtime, and because the grievor was forced to work, she was entitled to a higher premium rate under the collective agreement.

The employer maintained that statutory holiday work and overtime were governed by separate provisions, and the statutory holiday provision did not include an enhanced premium for forced work.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that the collective agreement treated overtime and statutory holiday pay as separate and distinct, and the hours worked on the statutory holiday did not attract the forced overtime premium.

The union filed a policy grievance challenging the employer's Absenteeism Control Procedures and Innocent Absenteeism Guidelines, specifically the issuance of non-disciplinary letters after a certain number of absences and the alleged failure to consider individual circumstances.

The arbitrator held that the employer is entitled to issue non-disciplinary letters to address innocent absenteeism and that a trigger of four absence incidents is permissible.

The arbitrator also found that the policy grants sufficient discretion to the employer to modify its application based on an employee's individual circumstances.

The grievance was dismissed, subject to the employer providing 90 days' notice for future changes to the policy.

The union filed a policy grievance claiming the employer was liable to pay for Functional Abilities Assessment Forms (FAAF) required for employees returning to work following a medical absence.

The collective agreement required the employer to pay $10.00 for medical certificates verifying absences of less than five days, and required employees to provide satisfactory medical certificates at their own expense for longer absences.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that a FAAF is an addendum to a medical certificate to facilitate modified duties, not a medical examination required by the employer, and therefore the employer was not obligated to cover its cost.

The College of Teachers brought a motion seeking authorization to withdraw the allegations of professional misconduct set out in the notice of hearing against the member.

On consent of the parties, the Discipline Committee granted the motion and authorized the withdrawal of the allegations.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought a motion seeking leave to withdraw the allegations of professional misconduct against the member, as set out in the Notice of Hearing dated October 18, 2007.

The member consented to the motion.

The Discipline Committee granted the motion and authorized the College to withdraw the allegations.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought a motion seeking leave to withdraw the allegations of professional misconduct against the member set out in the Notice of Hearing.

Upon consent of the parties, the Discipline Committee granted the motion and authorized the withdrawal of the allegations.