Jennifer Richards

In a grievance arbitration concerning the discharge of an employee, the parties made a written request regarding the disclosure of documents.

The Grievance Settlement Board directed the investigator assigned to the grievor's Workplace Discrimination and Harassment Prevention (WDHP) complaint to provide all interview notes and documentation of statements to Employer counsel.

The complainant, a supervisor, grieved that a salary compression between himself and his subordinates violated his working conditions.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the grievance as not arbitrable, arguing the board lacked jurisdiction to rectify salary compression absent an allegation of a specific policy breach, discrimination, or bad faith.

The Public Service Grievance Board found that the Public Service Act gives the Civil Service Commission the exclusive right to set salary ranges for managers, and the temporary compression policy in effect did not require ministries to pay employees in a salary compression.

As there was no allegation of discrimination, arbitrariness, or bad faith, the board concluded it had no jurisdiction to hear the case on the merits and dismissed the grievance.

The grievor, an active union representative, alleged that the Employer discriminated against and harassed him due to his union activities.

He claimed this was evidenced by the Employer changing his work schedule and sending him home when he returned from a medical leave without a medical note certifying his fitness to work.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievances, finding that the schedule change was implemented for legitimate operational reasons to align with client hours, and that the requirement for a medical note was a standard practice justified by the lack of specific medical information regarding the grievor's fitness and need for accommodation.

The Board concluded there was no evidence of anti-union animus.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued an interim order following a conference call.

The grievor was directed to provide the employer with contact information for his referred physiatrist and pain clinic so the employer could seek medical information regarding his return to work.

The union was also ordered to provide particulars of the discrimination and harassment allegations by a specified date, failing which the employer could move to dismiss the grievance.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging employment discrimination on the basis of race, ancestry, creed, and age.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal defer the application because the applicant had multiple ongoing grievances based on the same facts and issues.

The Tribunal found significant overlap between the application and the outstanding grievances, which primarily concerned unfair job competitions.

The Tribunal ordered the deferral of the application pending the conclusion of the grievance process, noting that grievance arbitrators have the power and responsibility to enforce human rights obligations.

In a grievance arbitration concerning the discharge of an employee for inappropriate use of IT resources, the Union brought preliminary motions regarding document production and an alleged change of grounds.

The Grievance Settlement Board directed the Employer to produce a confidential report prepared for the Deputy Minister, finding it arguably relevant, subject to confidentiality conditions.

The Board dismissed the Union's motion to preclude the Employer from relying on three images and an internet usage log, finding that their use did not constitute an impermissible change of grounds as they fell under the stated ground of inappropriate IT resource use.

The union requested full disclosure of documents relevant to the grievor's discharge, including investigation reports, interview notes, correspondence, and policies.

The employer did not object to the request but required an order from the Board.

The Board ordered the production of the requested documents.

In an interim decision, the Grievance Settlement Board found that the grievor's return to work medical note was insufficient for the employer to determine if it was medically safe for him to return.

The Board ordered the grievor to have his doctor answer specific questions provided by the employer.

Additionally, the Board ordered the union to provide particulars regarding allegations of discrimination and harassment by a specified date, noting that failure to do so could result in a motion to dismiss the grievance.

In a grievance arbitration regarding a job competition, the Grievance Settlement Board ordered the Employer to provide full disclosure of the successful applicants' resumes, applications, and answer sheets with marking/scores.

The Union was ordered to provide full particulars of the facts and allegations it will rely on at arbitration upon receipt of the disclosure.

The Employer was also directed to advise the Union of any preliminary objections at least two weeks prior to the hearing.

The applicant, a former First Nations Constable, sought judicial review of the 1998 decisions terminating her employment and her appointment as a police officer.

The application was commenced in 2007 and perfected in 2008, nearly ten years after the impugned decisions.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for delay, finding the applicant's explanations for the delay unsatisfactory and noting that the respondents would suffer actual prejudice due to the passage of time and the unavailability of witnesses.

The grievor filed a complaint with the Public Service Grievance Board regarding two job competitions for managerial positions.

The employer raised a preliminary objection, arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction because the grievor was a member of the AMAPCEO bargaining unit at all material times.

The grievor argued that while acting in a temporary managerial assignment, she should not be considered a member of the bargaining unit.

The Vice-Chair found that under the clear language of the AMAPCEO collective agreement, the grievor remained covered by the agreement during her temporary assignment.

Consequently, she was a member of a bargaining unit under the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act and was excluded from filing a complaint under O. Reg. 378/07.

The complaint was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The grievor, a seasonal employee, was not recalled for a third season due to performance concerns.

The employer moved to dismiss the resulting grievance on the basis that it was untimely.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the grievor was aware of the facts giving rise to the grievance by mid-April 2007, but the grievance was not filed until December 2007.

The Board declined to exercise its discretion under section 48(16) of the Labour Relations Act to extend the time limits, noting the significant, unexplained delay and the fact that the employer had already filled the seasonal contracts for the upcoming season.

The employer's motion was allowed and the grievance was dismissed.

The Union sought an order requiring the Employer to disclose assignment control sheets, expense claims, and time sheets for several employees to support a grievance alleging differential treatment regarding travel and expense policies.

The Employer argued the particulars provided were insufficient to justify the broad disclosure requested.

The Grievance Settlement Board allowed the motion in part, ordering disclosure for specific employees where the grievor had direct information about their expense claims, but denying disclosure where the allegations relied on vague third-party information.

The respondent Ministry requested to strike certain allegations from a human rights complaint filed by a former employee, citing undue delay, lack of particularity, and conclusions in the Commission's Case Analysis.

The Tribunal struck allegations regarding an unspecified job competition and excessive scrutiny due to lack of particulars and the complainant shifting the focus of the allegations.

However, the Tribunal declined to strike the remaining allegations about other job competitions, finding sufficient notice and no undue delay by the complainant.

The Tribunal directed that the complainant present evidence at the hearing to establish a prima facie case on the remaining allegations before proceeding further.

The Employer brought a motion to dismiss certain allegations after the grievor refused to comply with a Board order requiring her to provide the names of co-workers who were told about her grievances.

The grievor argued she feared reprisals against her colleagues and sought to be excused from the order.

The Board held that the grievor could not unilaterally ignore a clear order and dismissed the insufficiently particularised allegations.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed several grievances due to the union's failure to deliver particulars in accordance with previous orders.

The hearing for the remaining grievances was adjourned to allow counsel to complete arguments on whether the union's particulars established a prima facie case, including whether the claims were precluded by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act.

The Employer brought a motion to dismiss the grievances or, in the alternative, for an order for further particulars regarding the grievor's allegations of differential treatment, discrimination, and harassment.

The Union had refused to provide the names of co-workers allegedly treated differently, citing the grievor's fear of employer retaliation against them.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the particulars provided were insufficient, as the Employer is entitled to know the case it must meet.

The Board declined to dismiss the grievances but ordered the Union to provide full and sufficient particulars, including names, dates, and specific details of the alleged differential treatment.

The union filed grievances on behalf of two employees regarding their placement on the salary grid upon promotion.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the grievances were untimely.

The arbitrator found that the grievances were filed approximately three months after the time limits expired.

Applying the factors for extending time limits under s. 48(16) of the Labour Relations Act, the arbitrator found no reasonable grounds for the delay and declined to extend the time limits.

The grievances were dismissed as untimely.

The union alleged that the employer breached a grievance settlement agreement by delaying a job posting and expanding the geographic area of search without disclosing this intention during negotiations.

The settlement had granted the grievor an interview for an upcoming temporary vacancy.

The arbitrator found that while the employer should have disclosed the expanded search area during negotiations, the omission was not in bad faith.

Furthermore, the grievor was granted the interview but failed to meet the minimum scoring threshold, meaning voiding the settlement would provide no practical advantage.

The grievance was dismissed.

The union grieved the employer's decision to screen the grievor out of a job competition for a Senior Field Auditor position.

The employer screened out the grievor because she did not possess a university degree, which was a required qualification in the job posting.

The union argued that the grievor's prior audit experience should have been considered in lieu of the degree requirement.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that the employer had the right to set qualifications and did not act unreasonably in requiring a university degree, especially given that the grievor's relevant experience was not extensive enough to overcome the lack of the required educational credential.