James McDonald

The Association grieved the termination of the Complainant's employment at the Office of the Independent Police Review Director (OIPRD).

Based on the submissions of the parties, the Grievance Settlement Board ordered that the Complainant be reinstated to employment effective November 14, 2014.

The Board further ordered the OIPRD to redact the Complainant's name to reflect 'CSP' in a specific decision posted on its website.

During a grievance arbitration concerning workplace harassment, the complainant's health and composure deteriorated significantly during cross-examination.

The employer brought a motion to adjourn the proceedings pending an Independent Medical Examination (IME) to determine the complainant's capacity to continue.

The Vice-Chair adjourned the motion and directed the union to encourage the complainant to voluntarily participate in an IME, retaining jurisdiction to determine the details if the parties could not agree.

The union grieved the employer's unilateral decision to restrict operational staff from starting work before 7:30 a.m., alleging it breached the collective agreement's provisions on start times and constituted bargaining in bad faith.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the bad faith bargaining allegation, finding it fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

However, the Board held that the employer breached the collective agreement by imposing a blanket restriction on start times without engaging in the required individual meetings to consider business needs and seniority.

The grievance was allowed in part, and the employer was directed to consider start time requests on an individual basis.

The parties entered into a Memorandum of Settlement (MOS) to resolve several disputes, which included a provision for the employer to reimburse the complainant up to $5,000 for mutually agreed-upon educational courses relevant to her current or future roles.

The complainant sought approval for a master's certificate in Public Sector Management, which the employer denied on the basis that it was intended for current managers and executives.

The arbitrator, remaining seized of the MOS, found that the proposed course was a reasonable fit within the contemplation of the MOS given the complainant's goal of advancing to management.

The employer was directed to approve the course.

The WSIB terminated the employment of several permanently disabled employees who were in receipt of WSIB loss of earnings benefits.

The union filed a grievance alleging unjust treatment due to the terminations and seeking severance pay and benefits.

Two years later, prior to mediation, the union clarified it was seeking reinstatement to employee status to maintain benefits, analogous to a prior decision involving LTD benefits.

The WSIB raised a preliminary objection, arguing this impermissibly expanded the scope of the grievance which it believed was limited to severance pay.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the objection, finding that the grievance expressly challenged the terminations and sought benefits, which inherently implies a claim for continued employee status.

The grievor, a Risk and Assurance Consultant, was discharged for using government IT resources to send personal emails related to her civil lawsuit against the Crown, blind-copying senior government officials, and failing to cooperate with the subsequent investigation.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that while the grievor's conduct warranted discipline, discharge was an excessive response given her prior disciplinary record of a 10-day suspension.

The Board substituted a 20-day suspension and ordered reinstatement without compensation, rejecting the employer's request for damages in lieu of reinstatement.

The parties in a grievance arbitration regarding surplus notice and bumping rights agreed on a disclosure protocol, except for one paragraph.

The Association sought to include a paragraph requiring the employer to provide a summary of reasons why the grievor was not eligible for positions identified by the Association.

The employer objected, arguing it improperly shifted the burden of proof and was premature.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the inclusion of the disputed paragraph, finding it would facilitate an efficient hearing and did not alter the burden of proof, as the employer's obligation would only be triggered after the Association provided its initial disclosure.

The Grievance Settlement Board revoked its previous decision of October 12, 2011.

Following a conference call and upon the request of the parties for limited reasons, the Board ruled that Article 9 of the Memorandum of Settlement should be interpreted in the manner advanced by AMAPCEO.

The Employer was directed to implement Article 9 accordingly.

In a grievance arbitration concerning an employee who was surplussed following organizational changes, the Association requested further document disclosure after the Employer's first witness testified.

The Employer argued the documents were not arguably relevant, contending the issue was narrowly about whether the grievor was properly matched.

The Association argued the entire reorganization process was suspect as the grievor was the only employee surplussed.

The Vice-Chair found the requested documents arguably relevant and ordered their disclosure.

In a grievance concerning a job competition, the parties asked the Grievance Settlement Board to determine a preliminary issue regarding the appropriate standard for assessing applicants.

The collective agreement provided a preference for AMAPCEO unit applicants where qualifications and ability were relatively equal.

The successful applicant, originally from outside the unit, acquired AMAPCEO unit status after the posting closed but before the final selection was made.

The Board held that an applicant's status must be determined as of the date the job posting closes, not the date of final selection, to ensure certainty and prevent potential manipulation of the process.

The complainant failed to attend a scheduled grievance arbitration hearing regarding her ten-day suspension and alleged breach of a settlement agreement.

Despite being directed to attend or provide medical justification for her absence, she did not appear or communicate with her union representative.

The employer requested the complaint be dismissed and withdrew its own allegations.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the dispute due to the complainant's failure to participate.

The union requested an adjournment of a grievance arbitration hearing because the complainant failed to attend, citing a medical leave but providing no medical documentation.

The employer opposed the adjournment, noting a history of delays and the complainant's lack of respect for the process, but agreed in the alternative to a peremptory adjournment.

The Vice-Chair granted the adjournment on a peremptory basis, directing the complainant to attend the next scheduled hearing date or provide sufficient medical justification for her absence.

The Association requested an order compelling the Employer to disclose documents related to the re-organization that led to the grievor's surplussing.

The Employer generally did not take issue with the request.

The Vice-Chair ordered the Employer to provide the requested information and established a schedule for disclosure.

The Association brought a motion to bifurcate the proceedings arising from a job competition grievance.

The Association sought to have two issues determined separately: whether the qualified complainant should have been awarded one of the unfilled permanent positions, and whether the competition was fundamentally flawed for failing to consider her previous experience.

The Employer opposed the motion, arguing it would cause substantial prejudice and that the entire selection process needed to be examined.

The Grievance Settlement Board granted the motion in part, allowing bifurcation only for the first issue, as it involved a legal/interpretive question that could likely be argued on undisputed facts without requiring a full inquiry into the selection process.

The complainant, a former fixed-term unclassified contract employee, alleged the employer conducted an unfair job competition.

The employer raised a preliminary objection to the arbitrability of the dispute, arguing that as a former employee, the complainant could not advance a grievance regarding the competition.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the preliminary objection, finding that the collective agreement explicitly granted former employees the right to apply for restricted competitions for 24 months after layoff.

The Board concluded this negotiated benefit created a substantive right enforceable through the grievance arbitration procedure.

The parties reached a mutually acceptable settlement regarding allegations that the complainant was subjected to discriminatory treatment contrary to the Workplace Discrimination and Harassment Prevention Policy.

The Employer acknowledged the discriminatory treatment and took steps to remedy the situation.

The Grievance Settlement Board terminated the proceedings.

In an interim decision regarding the discharge of three union members, the Association objected to the admissibility of reports and witness statements prepared by a workplace investigator, arguing they constituted hearsay.

The Association requested that if admitted, the employer be directed to call the interviewed witnesses before the investigator to avoid prejudice.

The Grievance Settlement Board admitted the reports, noting the investigator would be called as a witness and subject to cross-examination.

The Board declined to direct the employer's order of witnesses, stating that any hearsay concerns regarding non-testifying witnesses could be addressed through redaction later in the proceeding.

Following the dismissal of the appellants' appeal of a refusal to certify a class proceeding regarding pension plan amendments, the respondents sought costs.

The appellants argued that no costs should be awarded, relying on the public interest and novel point of law provisions under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The Divisional Court found no special circumstances to depart from the general rule that costs follow the event.

Applying the overriding principle of reasonableness, the court awarded costs to the respondents, including disbursements for a responding report on a fresh evidence motion.

The appellants appealed the decision of the motion judge refusing to certify their proposed class proceedings against the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission regarding amendments to its pension plan.

The appellants alleged the pension plan was an irrevocable trust and the amendments constituted a breach of trust.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeals, finding that the motion judge made no errors of law, no palpable and overriding errors of fact, and that her conclusions on mixed fact and law regarding common issues, preferable procedure, and representative plaintiffs were reasonable and entitled to deference.

The Employer asserted that a binding settlement was reached during a mediation session on February 1, 2002, regarding two grievances filed by the grievor.

The Association argued that no settlement was reached because the handwritten Minutes of Settlement were never signed, the Association's president had not approved the terms, and the parties continued to negotiate substantive terms for months afterward.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that there was no meeting of the minds, as the parties continued to dispute substantive issues such as confidentiality and the timing of compensation payments.

The Board concluded that no settlement was reached and remained seized of the grievances.