James Craig

Sobeys Capital Inc. applied for judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision certifying Local 633 as a craft bargaining unit for 15 meat department workers at a Toronto supermarket.

Sobeys argued the decision was unreasonable, contrary to precedent, and created an absurd result by leaving the remaining 92 percent of employees non-unionized.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the OLRB's decisions under both s. 9(3) and s. 9(1) of the Labour Relations Act were reasonable, given the union's long history of representing supermarket meat department employees and the lack of evidence that certification would cause labour relations problems.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss a grievance filed by a correctional officer, arguing it was barred by a Memorandum of Settlement (MOS) signed in 2019 for five other grievances.

The employer relied on a broad release clause in the MOS that discharged all claims arising out of the grievor's employment up to the date of the agreement.

The union argued the release clause should be read in the context of the specific grievances listed in the MOS.

The arbitrator upheld the employer's motion, finding the plain language of the release clause clearly intended to release all grievances up to the date of the MOS, including the instant grievance which pre-dated the settlement.

In a grievance alleging failure to accommodate by not returning the grievor to work in a timely fashion, the Employer sought disclosure of the grievor's doctor's clinical notes.

The grievor consented to the disclosure.

The doctor provided redacted notes.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the doctor to produce a full and unredacted copy of her clinical notes to Union counsel within 30 days, failing which a Summons Duces Tecum may be issued.

The Union filed a grievance alleging the Employer failed to accommodate the grievor by not returning him to work in a timely fashion.

During the proceedings, the Union sought disclosure of all documents in the Employer's possession relating to a specific WSIB claim.

The Arbitrator ordered the Employer to produce the requested documents no later than 30 days before the next scheduled hearing date.

The Union filed three grievances alleging the Employer breached paragraphs 7, 8, and 9 of the 2007 GUDA MOS.

The parties requested a consent order to resolve the issues concerning paragraphs 8 and 9.

The Arbitrator issued the consent order declaring that the Employer ought to have met with the Joint Insurance Benefit Review Committee to discuss potential options concerning a contribution holiday before making its determination, and ought to have provided semi-annual financial statements within 120 days following the reporting periods.

The Arbitrator remained seized of the outstanding issue regarding paragraph 7.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued a procedural direction regarding outstanding grievances filed by the Union on behalf of the grievor.

Following two years of mediation that resolved all other grievances, the grievor's matters remained unresolved.

The Arbitrator directed the grievor to advise the employer by December 5, 2025, whether she intends to make a settlement offer or proceed to a hearing on the merits scheduled for January 2026.

The employer reserved the right to seek dismissal for abuse of process if the matter proceeds.

The parties engaged in case management discussions regarding two grievances involving allegations of harassment, discrimination, unfair exercise of management rights, health and safety violations, and unfair discipline.

On consent, the arbitrator issued case management directions setting deadlines for the Union to provide particulars and productions, and for the Employer to respond and advise of any preliminary issues.

Two correctional officers filed grievances alleging they were bullied and harassed by their sergeant while working in segregation review.

The arbitrator found the grievors' evidence credible and concluded that the sergeant's repeated yelling, demeaning comments, and aggressive behaviour created a toxic work environment.

The conduct was found to be a marked departure from reasonable behaviour with no legitimate workplace purpose, satisfying the definition of workplace harassment under the collective agreement and the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The grievances were allowed and the matter remitted to the parties to address remedy.

The union grieved the employer's decision to place the grievor on an unpaid leave of absence and subsequently suspend him for eight days for failing to comply with a mandatory COVID-19 rapid antigen testing policy.

The grievor argued he had a right to have his safety questions answered before complying and that he could not be disciplined for refusing a medical procedure.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievances, finding the testing requirement was reasonable and mandated by occupational health and safety obligations.

The arbitrator held that the right to refuse medical consent in the workplace does not preclude discipline for failing to comply with a reasonable and necessary safety rule.

A third grievance seeking reimbursement for purchased test kits was also dismissed as the employer was providing free kits at the time.

The Employer brought two motions to dismiss a Union grievance alleging a failure to provide insured benefits for diagnostic procedures.

The Employer argued the Union failed to establish a prima facie case and that the Arbitrator lacked jurisdiction because individual claims must be addressed by the Claims Review Subcommittee.

The Arbitrator dismissed both motions, finding the Union's particulars sufficient to establish a prima facie case and confirming jurisdiction to declare a collective agreement contravention.

However, the Arbitrator ordered the grievance held in abeyance until the individual denied claims are addressed by the Claims Review Subcommittee.

The arbitrator held a case conference to address the grievor's failure to provide a list of disputed facts and repeated breaches of a prior order prohibiting direct contact with the arbitrator.

As the grievor failed to provide the list of disputed facts, the factual allegations in the discipline letters were deemed accepted.

Furthermore, because the grievor violated the order against direct contact six times without apology, the arbitrator dismissed three of the six active grievances as a sanction.

The remaining three grievances (including a discharge grievance) were scheduled for hearing.

In a grievance arbitration under the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act, the employer advised it had not received fulsome particulars and production from the union.

The arbitrator ordered the union to provide particulars, production, and any medical documentation by April 2, 2024, and to request production from the employer.

The employer was ordered to provide full production by May 3, 2024, and the union to provide the grievor's will-say statement by June 3, 2024.

The scheduled hearing date was adjourned.

The Union filed grievances against the Employer.

In a previous case conference, the arbitrator ordered the Union to provide particulars regarding the allegation that the Employer failed to accommodate the grievor's alleged disability.

The Union failed to provide the particulars because the grievor failed to communicate with the Union.

Consequently, the arbitrator dismissed all grievances and defences relating to the failure to accommodate.

The remaining matters were scheduled to proceed, with a warning that failure by the grievor to attend could result in the dismissal of the remaining grievances.

The Employer brought a motion to adjourn the hearing scheduled for October 27, 2023, citing a recent change in counsel, incomplete production of documents, and the medical unavailability and anxiety of its first witness.

The Union opposed the adjournment, arguing it would cause undue delay and negatively impact the grievor's mental health.

The Arbitrator granted the adjournment, finding that the lack of full production and the specific circumstances of the witness justified the delay, and ordered a schedule for document production and the drafting of an Agreed Statement of Facts.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued a procedural order setting deadlines for the exchange of full production, including medical documentation, between the Union and the Employer in advance of the hearing.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued a consent order directing the Employer to produce an Investigation Report and related non-privileged materials to the Union.

The production was made subject to strict confidentiality conditions, including restrictions on copying, sharing, and retention of the documents.

The parties were also directed to prepare a joint chart of incidents underlying the grievor's termination and to schedule further hearing dates for mediation or case management.

The Union sought production of an Investigation Report and related materials.

On consent of the parties, the arbitrator ordered the Employer to produce the documents subject to strict confidentiality conditions, including restrictions on copying, distribution, and use solely for the purposes of the arbitration.

The parties requested a case conference to address procedural matters regarding multiple grievances, including disciplinary actions leading to dismissal and an alleged failure to accommodate a disability.

The Arbitrator issued orders directing the Employer to provide particulars regarding the disciplinary issues and the Union to provide particulars, including medical information, regarding the accommodation claim.

The Arbitrator also directed individuals not to contact him directly.

The parties consented to an order directing the Employer to produce an Investigation Report and related materials to the Union.

The arbitrator ordered the production subject to strict confidentiality conditions, including restrictions on copying, electronic distribution, and use of the documents solely for the purpose of the arbitration.

The employer brought a motion arguing that the substance of the grievance fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB).

The grievor alleged improper payment by the employer relating to a Partial Loss of Earnings award from the WSIB, which was paid out while the grievor used annual credits to remain on the employer's payroll.

The arbitrator found that the essential character of the dispute related to the calculation of WSIB benefits, not an error in the employer's payroll.

The grievance was dismissed as the matter fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the WSIB.