82 total
Request for damages for delayed settlement payment dismissed as employer paid within a reasonable time.
The complainant sought an order for $1,500 in damages, plus $1,000 per week, alleging the employer failed to pay funds owing under Minutes of Settlement within a reasonable time and acted in bad faith.
The employer argued there was no time limit in the settlement and that funds were paid promptly upon receipt of proof of expenses.
The Public Service Grievance Board dismissed the request, finding no breach of the settlement, no bad faith, and that the employer satisfied its obligations within a reasonable time.
Individual respondent removed from human rights application where corporate respondent accepted vicarious liability.
The respondents requested an order to remove the individual respondent, Marsha Smith, from the human rights application.
The organizational respondent, the Ministry of Government Services, accepted vicarious liability for the alleged discriminatory conduct, which arose in the context of employment.
Applying the factors from Persaud, the Tribunal found no compelling reason to continue the proceeding against the individual respondent, as the Ministry could remedy any Code infringement and the applicant would not be prejudiced.
The request was granted and the application was dismissed against the individual respondent.
Motion to add vacation days to a finalized settlement agreement due to alleged misrepresentation dismissed.
The Union brought a motion seeking an order to add ten vacation days to previously negotiated Minutes of Settlement, alleging the Employer misrepresented its ability to grant the days during mediation.
The Grievor had transferred from the Ontario Public Service to the Canada Revenue Agency and believed the Employer falsely claimed it could not transfer extra vacation days.
The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the motion, finding it inappropriate to unilaterally impose a term that was expressly considered and rejected during mediation, especially where the Grievor had already received substantial financial compensation.
The Board also found insufficient evidence of intentional misrepresentation or bad faith by the Employer.
Human rights application deferred pending resolution of concurrent union grievance based on same facts.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination, harassment, and failure to accommodate in employment on the basis of disability and age.
The applicant had also filed a concurrent union grievance based on the same facts and issues.
The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application pending the resolution of the grievance.
The respondents supported deferral, while the applicant did not file submissions.
The Tribunal found that deferral was appropriate to avoid duplication and the potential for inconsistent findings, as the grievance arbitrator has the authority to enforce human rights obligations.
The application was deferred pending the conclusion of the grievance process.
Grievance withdrawn; Board declines to attach 'with prejudice' or 'without prejudice' condition.
The union sought to withdraw a grievance alleging unjust dismissal on a 'without prejudice' basis, intending to pursue a related complaint before the Human Rights Tribunal.
The employer opposed the 'without prejudice' condition, arguing it was an abuse of process given the late stage of proceedings and previous rulings.
The Grievance Settlement Board held that the union was entitled to withdraw the grievance, but declined to attach either a 'with prejudice' or 'without prejudice' condition, leaving the consequences of the withdrawal to be determined by any future tribunal.
Health and safety inspectors are workers protected from reprisal under section 50 of the OHSA.
The union filed grievances alleging that the employer engaged in reprisals against a health and safety inspector for issuing orders contrary to management's wishes, violating section 50 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act.
The employer raised a preliminary objection, arguing that an inspector is not a 'worker' and the Ministry is not an 'employer' under section 50 when the inspector is enforcing the Act regarding the safety of others.
The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the preliminary objection, finding that the statutory definitions apply and the inspector is a worker protected by section 50, though this does not isolate inspectors from management direction or discipline for failing to conform to standards.
Motion to adjourn hearing dates denied pending production of more comprehensive medical documentation.
The Union moved to adjourn the scheduled hearing dates for a termination grievance, citing the grievor's inability to attend due to medical reasons and a recent family bereavement.
The Employer opposed the adjournment pending production of more comprehensive medical documentation.
The Grievance Settlement Board declined the motion to adjourn, finding insufficient information available, but allowed the Union to produce further medical information by a specified date or renew the request at the next scheduled hearing.
Employer's motion for disclosure of mortgage documents and particulars of discrimination allegations granted.
The employer brought a motion for disclosure and particulars in a grievance arbitration concerning the grievor's termination.
The employer alleged the grievor was dismissed for knowingly using a falsified pay stub to obtain a mortgage.
The union claimed the grievor was unaware of the falsified document.
The Vice-Chair ordered the union to disclose the grievor's mortgage applications and related documents, finding them highly relevant to the core issue.
The Vice-Chair also ordered the union to provide particulars of its allegations of discriminatory conduct by the employer.
Grievances regarding second hand smoke dismissed as untimely due to unexplained multi-year delay.
The employer raised a preliminary objection to the timeliness of over 200 grievances filed by correctional officers regarding exposure to second hand smoke prior to the institutions going smoke-free in 2001.
The grievances were filed in or after 2005.
The union conceded the grievances were untimely but sought an extension of time limits.
The Grievance Settlement Board found that the union failed to establish a prima facie case for extending the time limits, as the grievors knew of the circumstances giving rise to the complaints years before filing and provided no reasonable explanation for the multi-year delay.
The grievances were dismissed as untimely.
Union's request for disclosure of post-screening job competition documents denied as not arguably relevant.
The union requested disclosure of various documents related to a job competition for an Employment Standards Officer position, alleging the grievor was improperly denied an interview and screened out due to age.
The employer agreed to provide some documents but resisted others.
The arbitrator ruled that documents relating to the competition after the interview screening process were not arguably relevant to the issue of whether the grievor was improperly denied an interview.
The request for the ages of all applicants was denied as there was no evidence the employer had this information.
Grievance dismissed; discharge upheld for employee who lied about criminal charges and jail sentence.
The grievor, an Enforcement Service Representative at the Family Responsibility Office, was discharged for dishonesty on two occasions.
First, he misrepresented the circumstances surrounding criminal charges (fraud and breach of trust) discovered during a criminal record check, falsely claiming they arose from a misunderstanding over filing tax returns without written authorization.
Second, he requested a leave of absence ostensibly to care for his ill mother, but the leave coincided with his sentencing to 18 months in jail for the criminal charges.
The arbitrator found the grievor was dishonest in both instances, irreparably damaging the employment relationship, and upheld the discharge.
Grievance dismissed; termination of corrections officer upheld for egregious off-duty confrontation with police.
The grievor, a corrections officer with 20 years of service, was terminated for off-duty conduct involving criminal harassment of his ex-wife, death threats to police, and a physical confrontation with police resulting in charges of assault with a weapon and impaired driving.
He also failed to report his arrests to his employer.
The union grieved the termination, arguing the conduct was off-duty and the grievor suffered from substance abuse issues.
The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding the grievor's conduct was egregious, inconsistent with his status as a peace officer, and harmed the employer's reputation.
The Board rejected the grievor's self-diagnosis of addiction and found no objective evidence of rehabilitation, concluding termination was justified.
Application against Grievance Settlement Board dismissed as adjudicative decisions are protected by judicial immunity.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment and reprisal, naming the employer, the union, and the Grievance Settlement Board (GSB) as respondents.
The GSB sought to be removed as a respondent, arguing that its adjudicative decisions, such as granting adjournments, are protected by judicial immunity and do not constitute a service under section 1 of the Human Rights Code.
The Tribunal agreed, finding that it has no jurisdiction over the GSB's adjudicative decisions or its alleged failure to develop specific rules for human rights grievances.
The application against the GSB was dismissed.
Board consolidates three job competition grievances and orders employer disclosure.
The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the consolidation of three job competition grievances filed by the union.
The Board further ordered the employer to make disclosure in the usual form for job competition grievances, and directed that the union's particulars be provided through the grievor's viva voce evidence, with the employer afforded an adjournment if requested.
Consent order issued directing employer compliance with Minutes of Settlement.
The parties resolved a grievance by Minutes of Settlement and requested a consent order.
The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the employer to comply with the settlement and remained seized with respect to its interpretation, application, or implementation.
Board assumes jurisdiction over human rights issues related to termination after Tribunal defers proceedings.
The employer brought a motion requesting the Grievance Settlement Board assume jurisdiction to adjudicate human rights issues related to the grievor's termination, after the Human Rights Tribunal deferred the grievor's application pending the grievance outcome.
The union did not oppose the motion.
The Vice-Chair granted the motion, confirming the Board's jurisdiction to consider the employer's conduct in the context of potential Human Rights Code violations, and directed the union to provide particulars of the alleged discriminatory conduct.
Grievance over rescinded discipline is moot, but claim for damages for mental distress remains live.
The grievor filed a grievance alleging unjust discipline after receiving a letter of reprimand.
Prior to the hearing, the employer rescinded the letter of reprimand, substituted a non-disciplinary letter of counsel, and moved to dismiss the grievance for mootness.
The Grievance Settlement Board held that the issue of unjust discipline was moot because the letter of counsel was not disciplinary.
However, the Board found that the grievor's claim for damages for alleged loss of reputation and mental distress, which stemmed from the original discipline, remained a live controversy.
The employer's motion was granted in part.
Grievance allowed; irregularly scheduled correctional officer entitled to attendance credits despite working fewer than 160 hours.
The union filed a grievance on behalf of an irregularly scheduled fixed-term correctional officer who was denied attendance credits for October 2009.
The collective agreement provided that employees working 40 hours per week earn attendance credits for each month of full attendance.
The employer argued that the grievor did not meet the 160-hour threshold set out in its Human Resources Guide.
The arbitrator found that the grievor worked 40 non-overtime hours in each week that fell within or overlapped the month, satisfying the collective agreement's requirements.
The arbitrator rejected the employer's estoppel argument, finding that the union had not clearly acquiesced to the 160-hour rule in the context of a compressed work week.
The grievance was allowed.
Board lacks jurisdiction over pay-for-performance grievance but allows overpayment deduction claim to proceed due to employer waiver.
The employer brought preliminary objections to dismiss the complainant's grievance concerning changes to his pay.
The employer argued that the Board lacked jurisdiction over complaints regarding the pro-rating of a pay-for-performance award and the retroactive implementation of a pay-for-performance policy, and that the remaining complaint regarding deductions for an alleged overpayment was untimely.
The Board upheld the jurisdictional objection, finding that the pay-for-performance complaints were excluded from its jurisdiction under Regulation 977.
However, the Board dismissed the timeliness objection regarding the overpayment deductions, finding that the employer had waived its right to object by participating in the grievance process for nearly three years without raising the issue.
Employer not obligated to pay employees attending grievance hearings on behalf of a complainant unless subpoenaed.
The complainant argued that the employer should pay employees who attend Public Service Grievance Board hearings on behalf of a complainant, either as representatives, advisors, or witnesses not under subpoena, in the same manner as employees acting for the employer.
The Board found that the complainant was entitled to choose an option under section 44 of the Compensation Directive because he had received a summons.
However, the Board rejected the broader argument, holding that parties are primarily responsible for their own costs and there is no obligation on the employer to remunerate employees participating on behalf of a complainant beyond what is expressly provided in the Directive.
