127 total
Employer breached duty to accommodate and harassed employee by insensitively communicating schedule changes affecting his accommodation.
The grievor, a Correctional Officer with mental health issues, was accommodated with a specific schedule and limited inmate contact.
A manager, unaware of the specifics of the grievor's mental health needs, held a meeting to announce schedule changes and made comments suggesting the accommodation was short-term and that the grievor could be replaced.
The grievor's mental health subsequently deteriorated.
The Grievance Settlement Board found that the Employer discriminated against the grievor and failed in its duty to accommodate by not considering his mental health issues when communicating the changes.
The Board also found that certain comments made by the manager constituted harassment under the Human Rights Code.
The grievance was allowed and the issue of remedy was remitted to the parties.
Employer must schedule 147 correctional officers daily but retains management right to assign outside duties.
The Union grieved the Employer's scheduling practices under a Compressed Work Week Agreement at the Elgin Middlesex Detention Centre.
The parties asked the Grievance Settlement Board to determine two questions regarding staffing levels.
The Board held that the agreement requires the Employer to schedule 147 classified Correctional Officer positions per day and make every effort to backfill them if absent.
However, the Board found that the agreement does not restrict the Employer's management right to assign those officers to duties outside the building, such as escort duties, during their shifts.
Adjournment granted with conditions limiting the employer's liability for compensation during the delay.
The union requested an adjournment of several continuation dates because the grievor had moved out of the province and had difficulty obtaining time off from his new job.
The employer did not object to the adjournment, provided its liability for the delay was limited.
The Vice-Chair granted the adjournment and ordered that the employer would not be responsible for any compensation accruing to the grievor during the period of delay.
Human rights application alleging disability discrimination and reprisal dismissed at summary hearing for delay.
The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, age, and reprisal, claiming that exposure to second-hand smoke in the 1990s caused a stroke in 2000, and that the respondents failed to resolve his subsequent grievances.
The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application, finding that the allegations regarding events prior to 2000 were out of time and that there was no reasonable prospect of success for the remaining allegations of discrimination and reprisal.
Grievances regarding reduced seasonal contracts dismissed; no anti-union animus, improper contracting out, or promissory estoppel established.
The union filed grievances on behalf of seasonal employees alleging that the employer improperly reduced the duration of their seasonal contracts and failed to offer pre-season work.
The union argued that the employer's actions were motivated by anti-union animus, involved improper contracting out, and were contrary to the doctrine of promissory estoppel based on alleged promises made to the grievors.
The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievances, finding no evidence of anti-union animus or improper contracting out.
The Board also rejected the estoppel claims, concluding that there were no clear and unequivocal promises intended to affect legal relations, nor was there detrimental reliance by the grievors.
Grievance alleging bad faith in surplusing a position dismissed as employer acted reasonably for budget reasons.
The grievor alleged that the Employer exercised its management rights in an arbitrary and bad faith manner when it decided to surplus his Communications Advisor/Planner position.
The Employer maintained the decision was based on budget reductions and a focus on core business functions.
The Grievance Settlement Board found that the Employer acted in good faith with a genuine intention to carry out a legitimate government objective, and that the decision was reasonable.
The grievance was dismissed.
Grievance dismissed; termination upheld for falsifying pay stubs, conducting outside business, and breaching confidentiality.
The grievor, a Financial Officer at the Family Responsibility Office, was terminated for cause after an IT forensic investigation revealed he had falsified pay stubs for a manager's mortgage brokerage business, conducted a personal accounting business during work hours using government resources, and disclosed confidential client information to a third party.
The grievor failed to attend the latter part of the arbitration hearings and provided no medical documentation to justify his absence.
The Grievance Settlement Board found the employer's evidence substantiated the misconduct.
The Board also dismissed the grievor's human rights allegations, finding no evidence of discriminatory treatment.
Given the serious nature of the misconduct and the grievor's failure to take ownership of his actions, the Board upheld the termination and dismissed the grievance.
Union's request for production of a Communications Review report denied for lack of arguable relevance.
In a grievance arbitration concerning a layoff, the Union requested the production of a Communications Review report.
The Employer refused.
During a conference call, the Vice-Chair determined that the report was not arguably relevant to the issues in the proceeding, noting the nature of the report, the timing of events, and that the decision-maker was unaware of the report at the relevant time.
The request for production was denied, with leave to revisit the issue if evidence at the hearing demonstrated relevance.
Grievance dismissed; employer's distribution of surplus position duties was a valid exercise of management rights.
The grievor's position as an Electronic Publisher became surplus due to the modernization of the branch website, which allowed staff to post information directly.
The union grieved, alleging that management misinformed the grievor by stating her duties would be transferred to the IT cluster, when in fact some duties were performed by branch staff.
The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the employer had the right to distribute duties under its management rights and that any gratuitous representation did not prevent the employer from exercising those rights differently, as no collective agreement right was adversely impacted.
Employer's motion to dismiss grievances for mootness denied as reprisal and harassment allegations constituted live controversy.
The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss a series of grievances filed by correctional officers, arguing that because no discipline was ultimately imposed following an investigation into a work stoppage, the issues were moot and there was no live controversy.
The Grievance Settlement Board reviewed the grievances and found that several alleged ongoing harassment, discrimination, and reprisal for exercising health and safety rights, rather than merely seeking the removal of disciplinary letters.
Applying the doctrine of mootness, the Board concluded that these allegations constituted a live controversy between the parties.
The employer's motion to dismiss was therefore dismissed, and the matters were ordered to proceed to hearing.
Adjournment denied and Union's case closed after grievor repeatedly failed to attend or provide ordered medical evidence.
The grievor failed to attend the scheduled arbitration hearing and failed to comply with prior Board orders requiring the production of specific medical evidence to justify his previous absences.
The Union requested another adjournment, providing only a clinic prescription note and a referral request, which the Board found inadequate.
The Board denied the adjournment request, noted the Union's case as closed since it had no other witnesses, and directed the matter to proceed to argument on the merits.
Adjournment granted despite inadequate medical evidence, but with strict conditions for future production.
The Union sought an extension to provide medical documentation supporting the grievor's absence, following an earlier order requiring compelling medical evidence.
The grievor failed to attend the reconvened hearing and the medical note provided was deemed inadequate.
The Employer sought dismissal of the grievance or an order to proceed in the grievor's absence.
The Grievance Settlement Board declined to dismiss the grievance or proceed in absentia, citing potential denial of natural justice if the grievor was legitimately unfit.
The Board adjourned the remaining hearing dates but ordered the Union to produce satisfactory medical evidence prior to the next scheduled date, noting that the delay would be considered in any ultimate assessment of damages.
Adjournment motion denied due to insufficient medical evidence detailing the grievor's limitations.
The Union brought a motion to adjourn the grievance arbitration proceedings due to the grievor's medical condition, supported by an email from the grievor's spouse and a brief doctor's note.
The Employer opposed the motion, arguing the medical evidence was inadequate.
The Grievance Settlement Board denied the adjournment motion, finding the doctor's note insufficient as it did not detail the grievor's limitations or restrictions.
The Union was directed to produce compelling medical evidence by a specified date, failing which the grievor's position would face dire consequences.
Job competition rerun ordered after employer conceded procedural defects in the selection process.
The union grieved the employer's decision not to award the grievor the position of Graphic Design and Print Operator.
The employer conceded that it failed to check the grievor's references or review his internal performance plans during the job competition.
The union also raised concerns about the participation of the grievor's immediate supervisor on the selection panel, given a prior workplace harassment complaint.
The arbitrator found that while it was not certain the grievor would have been the successful candidate absent the defects, the possibility could not be excluded.
The employer was directed to rerun the competition between the grievor and the incumbent.
Employer's non-suit motion dismissed as union adduced sufficient evidence of racial discrimination to require an answer.
The union filed a grievance alleging the grievor was subjected to racial discrimination by co-workers and that management failed to take action.
After the union closed its case, the employer brought a motion for non-suit.
The Grievance Settlement Board applied the standard for non-suit motions, which requires determining whether the union adduced sufficient evidence to support its claim if its witnesses are believed.
The Board found the union's evidence was sufficient to require an answer from the employer and dismissed the non-suit motion.
Union ordered to produce grievor's psychiatric records for accommodation grievance, subject to confidentiality conditions.
The Employer requested the production of the grievor's medical records in relation to a grievance alleging a failure to accommodate a disability.
The Grievance Settlement Board found the records arguably relevant and ordered the Union to produce the grievor's psychiatric records and family physician's medical records pertaining to his psychiatric condition, subject to strict confidentiality conditions.
Grievance dismissed on non-suit; employee failed to clearly communicate request for family status accommodation.
The Union alleged the Employer breached the Human Rights Code by failing to accommodate the grievor's family status during a mandatory Staff Learning Day.
The grievor had an ongoing accommodation for her work hours, but the Employer temporarily changed the hours for the event.
At the close of the Union's case, the Employer brought a motion for non-suit.
The Grievance Settlement Board found that the grievor failed to clearly communicate her need for accommodation to her manager, relying instead on general emails sent in her capacity as a union steward.
As clear communication of the request is an essential element of a failure to accommodate claim, the Union failed to make out a prima facie case.
Similar fact evidence of manager's propensity ruled inadmissible; psychiatric records ordered disclosed with confidentiality conditions.
In a grievance arbitration alleging racial discrimination and a poisoned work environment, the Employer brought motions regarding evidentiary matters.
The Employer objected to the Union's proposed evidence from a co-worker intended to show the manager's propensity to ignore discrimination complaints.
The Employer also sought disclosure of the grievor's psychiatric records and police records.
The Grievance Settlement Board ruled the co-worker's evidence inadmissible as improper similar fact evidence.
The Board ordered disclosure of the psychiatric records, subject to strict confidentiality conditions, because the grievor had put her mental health at issue by claiming damages for pain and suffering.
Disclosure of the police records was granted on consent.
Employer's preliminary objection to strike particulars of harassment allegations from grievance dismissed.
The employer raised a preliminary objection to the content of the grievance, arguing that the union attempted to expand its scope by adding allegations of harassment by a co-worker and a Deputy Superintendent.
The union argued that these allegations were components of the harassment and discrimination complained of in the original grievance.
The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the employer's objection, finding that the particulars regarding the co-worker were not entirely unrelated to the grievance and that the issue of improper handling of an inmate's mail could be relevant if it was the result of discrimination or harassment.
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.
