127 total
Union's particulars alleging failure to accommodate struck as improper expansion of leave of absence grievances.
The Employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss several particulars filed by the Union, arguing they constituted an improper expansion of the original grievances and were untimely.
The original grievances contested the Employer's denial of the grievor's request for a leave of absence and the subsequent termination of her employment for abandonment.
The disputed particulars alleged a failure to accommodate the grievor's disability over a four-year period prior to the grievances.
The Arbitrator granted the motion in part, finding that the accommodation claims were not reasonably part of the original grievances and thus constituted an improper expansion.
Alternatively, the Arbitrator found the accommodation claims were untimely and declined to extend the time limits under section 48(16) of the Labour Relations Act.
The Arbitrator found the original grievances regarding the leave of absence were timely filed.
Grievance regarding lost corporate file and pension service date adjustment dismissed as untimely and unfounded.
The grievor filed a grievance alleging that the employer lost a portion of his corporate file in retaliation for union activities and sought an adjustment of his pension service date.
The arbitrator dismissed the retaliation claim for lack of evidence.
The request to adjust the pension service date was dismissed as untimely, as the grievor had received annual pension statements for years without objecting.
The grievance regarding the lost file was timely but dismissed because the union could not point to any breached collective agreement provision other than the management rights clause, which alone does not give rise to a grievance.
Grievances dismissed after grievor failed to attend hearing due to dissatisfaction with union counsel.
The union referred two grievances to arbitration.
The grievor elected not to attend the hearing because he objected to being represented by union counsel, despite being warned that his non-attendance could result in the grievances being dismissed.
The union sought an adjournment to allow the grievor to reconsider, while the employer requested that the grievances be dismissed.
The arbitrator held that the grievor did not have a compelling reason for absenting himself, as the union is the party to the arbitration and is entitled to select and instruct counsel.
The request for an adjournment was denied and the grievances were dismissed.
Union directed to obtain medical opinion on grievor's fitness to participate in arbitration and provide particulars.
During a mediation session, the Grievance Settlement Board directed the union to request a medical opinion from the grievor's doctor regarding her fitness to return to work and participate in the arbitration process.
The union was further directed to provide particulars of the grievance to the employer within 90 days of obtaining a medical note confirming her ability to participate.
Employer's motion to dismiss grievances for lack of a prima facie case denied.
The employer brought a motion to dismiss four related grievances alleging bullying, harassment, health and safety violations, reprisal, and constructive dismissal.
The employer argued that the union's particulars and 'will say' statement did not make out a prima facie case for any violation of the collective agreement.
The Grievance Settlement Board applied the established principle that facts asserted in support of a grievance must be accepted as true for the purpose of such a motion.
The Board concluded that the facts asserted by the union were capable of supporting a violation of the collective agreement.
The employer's motion to dismiss was dismissed.
Nurse reprimanded for physically abusing a client after permanently resigning from the profession.
The Member, a registered nurse, faced allegations of professional misconduct for physically abusing a cognitively impaired client at a long-term care facility by grabbing and shaking her.
The Member admitted to the allegations through an Agreed Statement of Facts.
The Discipline Committee found the Member committed professional misconduct, including failing to meet the Therapeutic Nurse-Client Relationship standard and engaging in disgraceful, dishonourable, and unprofessional conduct.
The Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering an oral reprimand, noting that the Member had already signed an undertaking to permanently resign from the College and never reapply.
Employer ordered to assign grievor to specific work locations to fulfill medical accommodation requirements.
The union filed a grievance regarding the medical accommodation of the grievor.
Through a med/arb process, the Vice-Chair ordered the employer to directly assign the grievor to work at 47 Sheppard Ave East until a new office at 786 Lawrence Ave West opens, at which point she will be assigned there.
This assignment was deemed to meet any existing medical accommodation requirements and fully resolved the grievance.
The assignment is to take effect within one week of the grievor providing medical clearance.
Procedural directions issued for grievance arbitration using declarations and strict time limits for oral evidence.
The Grievance Settlement Board held a case management conference call to set procedural directions for two related grievances where the interests of the grievors were partially adverse.
The Vice-Chair issued directions requiring the evidence in chief to take the form of declarations, setting limits on the time for oral evidence and cross-examination, and establishing a schedule for the exchange of documents and declarations.
The procedure was inspired by the summary trial process under Rule 76.12 of the Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure.
Nurse reprimanded and fined $2,500 for selling completed competency assessments to nursing applicants.
The Member, a registered nurse operating a nursing exam preparation business, admitted to professional misconduct for providing two internationally educated nursing applicants with completed Competency Assessment Supplements in exchange for payment.
The Discipline Committee found the conduct to be disgraceful, dishonourable, and unprofessional, as it involved cheating the registration system.
Accepting a joint submission, the Committee ordered a reprimand and a $2,500 fine, noting that the Member had already signed an undertaking to permanently resign from the College.
Ten-day suspension for inappropriate tweet removed; harassment and reprisal grievance dismissed.
The grievor, a Correctional Officer, filed two grievances: one alleging harassment, discrimination, and reprisal for a previous human rights complaint, and another challenging a ten-day suspension for re-tweeting an inappropriate image on his personal Twitter account.
The Grievance Settlement Board upheld the suspension grievance, ordering the ten-day suspension removed from the grievor's record and that he be made whole, noting the lack of evidence that the tweet harmed the Employer's reputation.
The harassment and reprisal grievance was dismissed, as the Board found the Employer's scrutiny of the grievor's public social media account did not constitute harassment or a reprisal.
Arbitrator directed grievor to return to work at a new location following settlement.
The parties reached a settlement regarding the grievor's return to work but could not agree on the location.
Pursuant to Article 22.16 of the collective agreement, the parties requested the arbitrator to determine the appropriate location.
The arbitrator found that returning to the previous location was not in the interests of either party and directed the grievor to return to work at the Toronto East Detention Centre.
Termination of correctional officer for excessive force substituted with 20-day suspension as assault allegations unproven.
The union grieved the termination of a correctional officer who was dismissed for allegedly using excessive force against an inmate and failing to file complete and accurate reports.
The incident involved the officer pushing an inmate against a wall with his stomach, after which the inmate spat in the officer's face.
The employer alleged the officer then slapped and attempted to punch the inmate.
The arbitrator found that while the officer used excessive force by pushing the inmate and was misleading in his subsequent reports, the evidence did not support the allegation that he slapped or punched the inmate.
Given the officer's 12-year unblemished record, the termination was substituted with a 20-day unpaid suspension.
Board ordered the employer to adjust the grievor's continuous service date pursuant to a settlement agreement.
The parties sought assistance from the Grievance Settlement Board regarding the implementation of a Memorandum of Settlement signed in August 2012.
The issue concerned the grievor's continuous service date.
Following a conference call, the parties agreed to an order.
The Board ordered the employer to adjust the grievor's continuous service date from August 20, 2012, to March 22, 1995.
Board orders union to provide medical evidence and particulars following grievor's failure to attend hearing.
The union filed six grievances on behalf of the grievor alleging harassment, discrimination, and other violations.
The grievor failed to attend the scheduled arbitration hearing, and union counsel suggested this was due to mental health issues.
The employer requested orders for particulars and medical evidence to substantiate the grievor's inability to participate.
The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the union to provide medical evidence from the grievor's treating psychiatrist if she claims inability to participate due to health issues, and to provide full particulars and disclosure at least 10 days before the next scheduled hearing date.
Grievances alleging denial of developmental opportunities dismissed.
The union filed two grievances alleging that the grievor was denied developmental opportunities.
Following a hearing pursuant to Article 22.16 of the collective agreement, the Vice-Chair dismissed the grievances.
Grievor directed to provide particulars of travel and ill relative before adjournment request decided.
The union requested an adjournment of an upcoming arbitration hearing because the grievor needed to travel to be with an ill relative.
The employer opposed the request, noting the hearing date was set with the grievor's input and no particulars were provided.
The Vice-Chair directed the grievor to provide specific details regarding the ill relative, the nature of the illness, and her travel plans before ruling on the adjournment request.
Grievance over twenty-day suspension for inappropriate call handling dismissed as penalty was within reasonable range.
The grievor, a Customer Care Representative with Service Ontario, was suspended for twenty days without pay following an incident of inappropriate call handling with a fragile caller.
The union grieved the quantum of discipline, arguing that the grievor's nineteen years of clean service should mitigate the penalty.
The arbitrator found that the grievor's conduct was serious and that she failed to show immediate remorse or report the incident.
The arbitrator concluded that the twenty-day suspension fell within the reasonable range of discipline and dismissed the grievance.
Judicial review of OLRB decision dismissed; union's refusal to seek judicial review was not arbitrary.
The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision dismissing his claim that his union breached its duty of fair representation.
The union had refused to seek judicial review of an arbitration award that upheld the applicant's termination for insubordination and time theft.
The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Board reasonably concluded the union's decision was not arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith.
Grievances dismissed; newly created position required higher skills and was not identical to eliminated position.
The union filed grievances alleging the employer contravened the collective agreement by declaring Team Lead positions surplus and laying off the incumbents, while simultaneously creating a new Payroll/Benefits Production Analyst position.
The union argued the two positions were essentially the same and the employer acted in bad faith to circumvent seniority rights.
The arbitrator found that the new position required a greater knowledge base and higher skill level, and was therefore a significantly different job.
The arbitrator concluded the employer acted reasonably and in good faith for legitimate business purposes when reorganizing the branch to improve efficiency.
The grievances were dismissed.
Arbitration adjourned pending grievor's enrollment and completion of a residential substance abuse treatment program.
In a discharge grievance for innocent absenteeism, the Grievance Settlement Board issued interim directions requiring the grievor to attend Narcotics Anonymous and enroll in a minimum three-week residential treatment program.
The arbitration was adjourned pending the completion of the residential treatment, with the condition that failure to comply would result in the arbitration proceeding based on the evidence to date.
