127 total
Appeal dismissed; disclosure of Family Responsibility Office employees' names to requester did not pose reasonable expectation of harm.
The Ministry of Community and Social Services and the Ontario Public Service Employees Union appealed a Divisional Court decision upholding an Information and Privacy Commissioner order.
The order required the Ministry to disclose records containing the full names of Family Responsibility Office (FRO) employees to a requester.
The appellants argued that disclosure posed a health and safety risk to the employees and conflicted with a prior Grievance Settlement Board order.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Commissioner reasonably concluded that the evidence did not establish a reasonable expectation of harm to the employees, and that the disclosure order did not conflict with the prior grievance settlement.
Job competition grievance dismissed; no breach of settlement confidentiality or material flaws in interview process found.
The union filed a grievance alleging the employer breached a Memorandum of Settlement during a job competition re-run.
The union claimed the employer breached the confidentiality clause by discussing interview arrangements in a public setting and that the interview process was flawed because the written test was not handwritten and the scoring was unfair.
The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding no breach of the confidentiality clause and concluding that the competition process was reasonably fair and consistent.
The arbitrator held that there were no flaws in the process severe enough to justify the extraordinary remedy of placing the grievor directly into the position.
Grievances dismissed; employer's advanced French proficiency requirement for Travel Counsellor position was a reasonable exercise of management rights.
The grievor, a laid-off Travel Counsellor, applied for a Regular Full-Time Travel Counsellor position but was unsuccessful because she did not meet the mandatory advanced French proficiency requirement.
The union grieved, arguing the requirement was unreasonable given the grievor's 17 years of experience performing similar duties.
The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievances, finding no evidence of bad faith and concluding that the advanced French proficiency requirement bore a reasonable relationship to the work, especially since the position was located in a designated area under the French Language Services Act.
Request to amend human rights application to add reprisal allegations granted; interim cease and desist order denied.
The applicants, female soccer players participating in the FIFA Women's World Cup Canada 2015, filed a human rights application alleging sex discrimination regarding the requirement to play on artificial turf.
They subsequently sought to amend their application to include allegations of reprisal and requested an interim remedy ordering the respondents to cease and desist from threatening reprisals.
The Tribunal granted the request to amend the application, finding no prejudice to the respondents.
However, the Tribunal denied the request for an interim remedy, concluding that a cease and desist order was unnecessary because section 8 of the Human Rights Code already provides clear protection against reprisal.
Grievances dismissed on preliminary motion for failing to disclose a prima facie case.
The grievor filed four grievances alleging various breaches of the collective agreement, the Occupational Health & Safety Act, and the Workplace Harassment and Discrimination Policy, including allegations of religious discrimination and constructive dismissal.
The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the grievances on the basis that the particulars provided did not disclose a prima facie case.
The Grievance Settlement Board upheld the employer's motion, finding that even if the facts asserted were accepted as true and provable, they were not capable of establishing the elements to substantiate the alleged violations.
The grievances were dismissed.
Union ordered to provide further and better particulars regarding workplace harassment allegations.
The employer brought a motion for further and better particulars regarding three grievances alleging harassment by coworkers and management.
The employer argued that two paragraphs in the union's particulars were too vague.
The Grievance Settlement Board agreed, finding that the paragraphs lacked the required degree of granularity.
The union was ordered to provide further and better particulars within 20 business days.
Union's preliminary motion to consolidate privacy breach grievances with future scheduled matters denied without prejudice.
The Union brought a preliminary motion requesting that a group grievance and a separate Union grievance be consolidated with two other grievances scheduled to be heard by the same Vice-Chair at a later date.
The grievances generally related to alleged breaches of confidentiality regarding medical information and WSIB claims posted on a shared computer drive.
The Employer opposed the consolidation, arguing the facts and law were dissimilar and that the request should be made to the Board seated for the future hearing.
The Vice-Chair declined to grant the consolidation order at this time, noting that the formal hearing for the other matters had not yet commenced and the specific questions to be posed were not yet agreed upon.
The dismissal was without prejudice to the Union raising the request before the Board seated to hear the other matters.
Preliminary objection upheld dismissing grievance allegations regarding Schedule A as grievors did not hold designated positions.
The union filed grievances on behalf of over one hundred grievors alleging improper balancing of hours, including alleged violations of Appendix COR1 Schedule A. The employer raised a preliminary objection that the Schedule A issues should be dismissed because none of the grievors worked in a designated Schedule A position.
The Vice-Chair upheld the preliminary objection and dismissed those specific allegations.
Interim procedural order issued requiring union to provide particulars for over 100 grievances.
The union filed grievances on behalf of upwards of one hundred grievors alleging improper balancing of hours.
To streamline the process, the Vice-Chair issued an interim procedural order requiring the union to obtain full particulars from each grievor by a specified deadline, failing which the grievance would be deemed withdrawn.
The order also set deadlines for providing the particulars to the employer and scheduled further hearings to address specific issues.
Grievance to be deemed dismissed if Union fails to provide reasons for grievor's non-attendance.
The grievor failed to attend the scheduled arbitration hearing.
The Grievance Settlement Board ordered that the Union must advise within three weeks if it intends to proceed with the next scheduled hearing date and provide reasons for the grievor's non-attendance.
If the Union fails to do so, the grievance will be deemed dismissed.
Grievance over job competition dismissed; employer properly assessed incumbent as the superior candidate.
The union grieved the employer's decision to award a Graphic Design and Print Operator position to the incumbent rather than the grievor following a rerun of the job competition.
The grievor alleged that the employer failed to consider his 'thank you binder' and improperly mentioned his prior grievance to a referee.
The arbitrator found that the employer's assessment, which scored the incumbent significantly higher than the grievor, was proper.
The arbitrator concluded that the binder was considered and would not have altered the outcome, and that the conversation with the referee had no negative impact on the selection process.
The grievance was dismissed.
Hearing bifurcated to address language requirement and timeliness as preliminary issues.
The union filed two grievances on behalf of a laid-off employee who was unsuccessful in a competition for a full-time position after failing a written French language test.
The grievances alleged the position should have been directly assigned to the grievor, or alternatively, that she should have been the successful candidate.
The Grievance Settlement Board ordered that the hearing be bifurcated to first address whether the written French language requirement was a legitimate exercise of management rights, and whether the redeployment grievance was timely, as these preliminary issues could be dispositive.
Nurse Practitioner suspended for nine months for unauthorized prescribing of controlled substances and falsifying prescriptions.
The College of Nurses of Ontario brought allegations of professional misconduct against a Nurse Practitioner for failing to participate in a Quality Assurance practice assessment, prescribing controlled substances outside her authorized scope, falsifying prescriptions by adding a physician's name without authorization, and failing to comply with a previous alternative dispute resolution agreement.
The Member admitted to the allegations.
The Discipline Committee found the Member committed professional misconduct and engaged in dishonourable and unprofessional conduct.
Accepting a joint submission on penalty, the Committee ordered a reprimand, a nine-month suspension, and various terms, conditions, and limitations on her certificate of registration, including meetings with a nursing expert and employer notification requirements.
Grievance allowed; employer held liable for failing to investigate and address racial harassment in the workplace.
The grievor, a visible minority, alleged she was subjected to racial discrimination, harassment, and assault by her coworkers.
She reported these incidents to her manager and director, but the employer failed to conduct a meaningful investigation or take reasonable steps to address the poisoned work environment.
As a result of the workplace conflict, the grievor developed major depressive disorder and required a medical leave of absence.
The Grievance Settlement Board allowed the grievance, finding that the employer was willfully blind to the serious problems in the office and breached its duty to provide a safe and healthy work environment free from discrimination.
Employer's motion for production of medical documentation granted in grievance arbitration.
During a grievance arbitration hearing scheduled to deal with remedial issues, the Employer sought an order for the production of certain medical documentation.
The Union opposed the request.
The Vice-Chair determined it was appropriate to order the production sought by the Employer and directed the Union to seek production of specific medical records from various healthcare providers.
Grievance dismissed on preliminary motion as particulars failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination.
The union filed a grievance alleging that the employer discriminated against the grievor on the basis of gender, race, ancestry, and colour, resulting in the denial of employment opportunities and preventing her from meeting the criteria for conversion to a regular service position.
The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the grievance, arguing the union's particulars did not disclose a prima facie case.
The Grievance Settlement Board upheld the employer's motion, finding that even if the particulars were accepted as true, they failed to demonstrate that the grievor's protected characteristics were a factor in any adverse treatment she experienced.
Grievance alleging reprisal for work refusal dismissed where employee was insubordinate and received no discipline.
The grievor, a correctional officer, refused a supervisor's order to return two inmates to their original unit to avoid triple bunking, claiming the order was unsafe and the supervisor was incompetent.
The grievor initiated a work refusal under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, which the Ministry of Labour determined did not meet the criteria for a work refusal.
The employer subsequently held a fact-finding meeting and issued a conciliatory letter closing the issue without imposing discipline.
The union grieved, alleging the employer's actions constituted a reprisal for the work refusal.
The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding the grievor's conduct was insubordinate and the employer's response did not breach the collective agreement.
Grievances dismissed on preliminary motion as particulars failed to establish a prima facie case for conversion.
The Employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss two grievances alleging failure to convert fixed-term employees to classified status, arguing the particulars disclosed no prima facie case.
The Union alleged the Employer acted in bad faith by manipulating work assignments to prevent the grievors from reaching the 18-month threshold required for conversion under the collective agreement.
The Grievance Settlement Board found that the work performed in different classifications was not the 'same work' and that the Employer was not obligated to extend contracts.
The Board concluded the particulars did not establish bad faith or a violation of the collective agreement, and dismissed the grievances.
IPC order requiring disclosure of employee names upheld on judicial review.
The applicant ministry sought judicial review of an order of the Information and Privacy Commissioner requiring disclosure of the full names of Family Responsibility Office employees contained in a requester’s file.
The ministry argued the information was excluded from disclosure under s. 65(6)3 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as relating to labour relations matters, or alternatively exempt under ss. 14(1)(e) and 20 due to safety concerns.
The Divisional Court held the IPC reasonably concluded the records were created in the course of the institution’s operational mandate rather than about labour relations, and therefore were not excluded from the Act.
The court also found no evidence that disclosure to the requester posed a safety risk to the employees and determined that compliance with the IPC order would not conflict with a prior Grievance Settlement Board order governing employee identification practices.
Employer's motion to dismiss grievances challenging the surplussing of Team Lead positions denied.
The Employer brought a motion to dismiss several grievances filed by employees whose Team Lead positions were declared surplus.
The Union alleged that the Employer improperly surplussed the employees by creating a new, higher-paying position with the same duties and responsibilities, thereby violating the Collective Agreement.
The Grievance Settlement Board denied the Employer's motion, finding that the Union's allegations disclosed an arguable case of an improper lay-off.
The matter was directed to continue on its merits.
