Jane Letton

The Union brought a motion seeking disclosure of documents regarding IT policy violations by six named individuals, arguing the information was relevant because the grievor was terminated in part for misusing the Employer's IT resources.

The Employer objected, arguing the Union's particulars were insufficient.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the motion, finding the Union's request overly broad and lacking sufficient particulars regarding the 'what', 'when', 'where', and 'how' of the alleged conduct.

The Union was granted leave to provide better particulars.

The Union filed group grievances alleging that the scheduling of court reporters for weekend and statutory holiday bail hearings at the Old City Hall courthouse was inequitable and violated the collective agreement's provisions on management rights, discrimination, and health and safety.

The Employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the grievances, arguing there was no prima facie case and noting the absence of medical evidence.

The Grievance Settlement Board denied the motion, holding that the Union's allegations of fact must be taken as true at this stage and that dismissing the grievances without hearing the grievors' evidence would violate natural justice.

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.

The union filed grievances alleging workplace harassment, failure to accommodate, and unjust suspension.

The Grievance Settlement Board previously ordered the union to provide detailed particulars of the allegations.

The union failed to meet the deadline and subsequently provided deficient particulars that lacked specific details of the alleged harassment.

The Board granted the union a final opportunity to deliver proper particulars and rescheduled the hearing to Toronto due to witness availability and the likelihood of procedural delays.

In a grievance arbitration concerning the employer's alleged failure to accommodate a disability arising from workplace harassment, the Grievance Settlement Board issued a pre-hearing procedural order.

Following an unsuccessful mediation, the Vice-Chair ordered both parties to exchange full written particulars of their material facts and produce all relevant documents according to a set timetable to ensure an efficient hearing on the merits.

The employer admitted to violating the health and safety provisions of the collective agreement by failing to remove an inmate from the institution within the required timeframe under the 'Threats Against Staff' policy.

The breach was caused by an administrative error, and the grievor suffered no economic loss or undue hardship.

The arbitrator awarded $350 in general damages to reflect the severity of the breach without punishing the employer.

The complainants challenged the respondent's policy of disclosing mental health apprehensions on police reference checks.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal granted the complainants' request for a publication ban to anonymize their identities due to the highly personal nature of the information at issue.

The Tribunal also granted intervenor status to the Attorney General of Ontario to adduce expert evidence on the relevancy of such apprehensions to vulnerable sector checks.