10 total
Grievances dismissed; discharge upheld for employees who moderated malicious workplace blog and misused government resources.
Two employees were discharged for multiple reasons, including their alleged involvement in moderating a highly inappropriate and malicious workplace blog.
One employee was also discharged for using government resources to conduct a personal business.
The other employee was discharged for unauthorized access to a government database, running a personal business on work time, and using his government email to receive and distribute highly offensive pornographic images.
The arbitrator found that the employer had established just cause for both discharges.
The arbitrator emphasized the employees' lack of honesty during the investigation and the hearing, concluding that the employment relationship and trust had been irreparably broken.
The grievances were dismissed.
Grievances over denial of job interviews dismissed; employer's screening process was fair and reasonable.
The union filed grievances on behalf of two employees who were screened out of a job competition for Compliance Officer positions and denied interviews.
The union alleged the employer violated the collective agreement by failing to properly assess their qualifications and ability.
The Grievance Settlement Board found that the employer's screening process, which required specific technical knowledge related to mining and mine rehabilitation, was fair and reasonable.
The Board declined to interfere with the employer's assessment of the application materials and dismissed the grievances.
Employer's preliminary motion to dismiss grievance alleging bad faith in work assignment denied.
The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the union's grievance without a hearing on the merits, arguing that the allegations failed to disclose a prima facie violation of the collective agreement.
The grievance alleged that the employer acted in bad faith and arbitrarily in assigning the grievor, a court reporter, to non-trial courts, resulting in a significant loss of transcription income.
The employer contended that the assignment of duties was an unreviewable exercise of management rights.
The Grievance Settlement Board declined to dismiss the grievance at the preliminary stage, noting the complexity of the legal issues surrounding the duty of good faith in the exercise of management rights and directing that the matter proceed to a full evidentiary hearing.
Grievance allowed; employer ordered to appoint grievor after relying solely on flawed interview scores.
The union filed a grievance alleging the employer violated the collective agreement by denying the grievor a Senior Administrative Clerk position following a job competition.
The employer relied solely on interview and practical test scores, failing to consider the grievor's successful performance in the position in an acting capacity or to conduct reference checks.
The Grievance Settlement Board found this sole reliance on interview scores violated the collective agreement.
Concluding that the grievor would have been found at least relatively equal to the successful candidate had her experience been properly assessed, the Board ordered the employer to appoint the grievor to the position retroactively and compensate her for lost earnings.
Grievance alleging discriminatory desk assignment dismissed for failing to disclose a prima facie case.
The union grieved the employer's decision to use a lottery system to assign a preferred desk, alleging it violated the collective agreement and the Human Rights Code by discriminating on the basis of age and gender.
The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the grievance for failing to disclose a prima facie case.
The Grievance Settlement Board struck portions of the union's particulars that improperly expanded the scope of the grievance.
Assuming the remaining facts were true, the Board found that the failure to assign a desk based on seniority did not constitute a human rights violation, and dismissed the grievance.
Employer's timeliness objection dismissed as it waived its right by taking a fresh step.
The union filed two grievances alleging harassment and failure to accommodate due to disability.
The employer raised a preliminary objection that the grievances were untimely, having been filed nine months after the triggering event.
The union argued the employer waived its right to object by participating in the joint file review process without raising the issue.
The Grievance Settlement Board found that the employer had sufficient information to raise the timeliness issue early on but failed to do so at the first reasonable opportunity.
By participating in the joint file review process, the employer took a fresh step, thereby waiving its right to object to timeliness.
The employer's motion was dismissed.
Grievance settlement enforced; employer legally required to make statutory deductions from amounts characterized as wages.
The complainant, who was self-represented, disputed the employer's implementation of a grievance settlement, arguing that the employer improperly made statutory deductions from a portion of the settlement characterized as wages.
The complainant contended that the settlement did not explicitly state that deductions would be made and alleged that the employer intentionally misled her.
The Public Service Grievance Board found that the employer was legally required to make statutory deductions from wages, regardless of whether it was explicitly stated in the settlement.
The Board concluded there was no evidence of improper conduct or misrepresentation by the employer and dismissed the complainant's request for further direction or a hearing.
Grievance Settlement Board assumed concurrent jurisdiction over human rights issues overlapping with unjust dismissal grievance.
The employer brought a motion requesting the Grievance Settlement Board assume jurisdiction over all aspects of the grievor's unjust dismissal complaint, including allegations of discrimination under the Human Rights Code.
The grievor had filed a concurrent application with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, which indicated it might defer to the Board.
The Board granted the motion, finding it had concurrent jurisdiction to interpret and apply human rights legislation, and directed the grievance to proceed on the merits.
Human rights application deferred pending conclusion of concurrent grievance proceeding.
The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination, harassment, and reprisal in the context of her employment.
The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because the facts of the application were also the subject of an ongoing grievance proceeding.
The applicant opposed deferral, arguing the grievance was at an early stage and the Tribunal could award broader public interest remedies.
The Tribunal deferred the application, finding that the grievance process was the most appropriate forum to avoid concurrent proceedings and inconsistent decisions, noting that grievance arbitrators have the ability to implement and enforce human rights obligations.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal in employment.
The applicant had also grieved the termination of her employment under a collective agreement.
The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application pending the conclusion of the grievance proceeding.
Despite the applicant's objections, the Tribunal deferred the application, finding that the grievance process dealt with substantially similar facts and issues, and that grievance arbitrators have the ability to enforce human rights obligations.
