John Brewin

The union filed grievances on behalf of unclassified General Duty Officers claiming they should be paid at the higher Youth Worker rate pursuant to the collective agreement's equivalent civil service classification provision.

The employer raised a preliminary objection, arguing the grievances were disguised classification grievances outside the Board's jurisdiction.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the objection, finding that the grievances properly sought to enforce a specific wage provision for unclassified employees and did not require the Board to amend or create a classification system.

The union filed a grievance alleging the employer failed to provide a healthy and safe workplace, contributing to the grievor's alcohol abuse and depression.

The employer raised preliminary objections that the grievance was untimely and barred by prior settlements of similar grievances.

The union argued that the time limits should be extended under s. 48(16) of the Labour Relations Act and the prior settlements reopened because the grievor lacked the mental capacity to appreciate the connection between the workplace stressors and his illness at the time.

The Vice-Chair held that there was insufficient evidence to rule on the preliminary objections and directed that further medical evidence and submissions be heard before determining arbitrability.

Two correctional officers grieved the employer's decision to deny them the opportunity to work overtime on their scheduled days off while they were serving disciplinary suspensions.

The union argued that the employer could not unilaterally ban overtime during a suspension because of local overtime protocols, and alternatively, that any denied overtime hours should count towards the suspension period.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that the employer had the statutory authority under the Public Service Act to remove an employee from employment without salary, which includes a ban on working overtime.

The Board further held that the employer was not obliged to credit the grievors with suspension hours for the overtime opportunities they were denied.

The grievor, a Conservation Officer, requested a lateral transfer to a vacant identical position in Vineland to assist his aging parents.

The employer denied the request, concluding it was not based on strong compassionate grounds and citing the grievor's past performance issues.

The Grievance Settlement Board allowed the grievance, finding that the employer failed to reasonably consider the request as required by the collective agreement and lateral transfer policy.

The Board held that the employer unreasonably relied on vague assumptions about the parents' health without seeking clarification, and improperly considered irrelevant performance issues when the grievor was already qualified for the identical position.

The employer was ordered to grant the lateral transfer.

The union grieved the employer's decision to restrict a Conservation Officer to clerical duties and deny him his firearm and badge pending an independent medical examination (IME).

The employer argued the grievor's past behaviour, including a firearm storage incident and angry outbursts, raised safety concerns justifying the IME under the collective agreement.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the employer lacked reasonable and probable grounds to believe the grievor was unable to perform his duties for health reasons, as the past incidents were treated as culpable misconduct rather than health issues.

The grievance was allowed, and the employer was directed to restore the grievor to full duties.

The Employer brought a motion for an order compelling the grievor to attend the first scheduled day of arbitration, arguing the grievor had demonstrated an unwillingness to participate by missing a mediation session and pre-disciplinary meetings.

The Union opposed the motion, noting it had carriage of the grievance and the grievor intended to attend.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the motion, finding the requested order unusual and unnecessary at this stage, as the Employer would present its case first and had not shown how the grievor's absence would prejudice its ability to proceed.

The union filed two grievances on behalf of the grievor.

The first alleged the employer violated the collective agreement by failing to permanently assign her to a Call Centre Agent position after a temporary secondment.

The second alleged improper discrimination after a supervisor informed the grievor of a public complaint regarding her 'heavy Indian accent'.

At the conclusion of the union's case, the employer moved for a non-suit.

The Grievance Settlement Board granted the motion, finding no case to meet.

The collective agreement provision relied upon for the first grievance did not apply because the grievor had not initially filled the position through a posting.

Regarding the second grievance, the Board found no evidence of discriminatory conduct or employment disadvantage, as the accent was used merely as an identifier by the complainant.

The union sought an adjournment of the hearing because the grievor was ill and unable to attend.

The employer noted this was not the first time the grievor's late notice caused an adjournment, and the union had been unable to provide particulars because the grievor failed to make herself available to counsel.

The Vice-Chair granted the adjournment but issued strict directions requiring the union to provide particulars by a specified date, failing which the employer could move to dismiss the grievances.

A peremptory hearing date was set, with strict medical documentation requirements if the grievor failed to attend again.

The grievor, a Programmer/Analyst, alleged that the employer discriminated against him on the basis of race by failing to provide him with a promised knowledge transfer for a new software application (RANDI).

The employer argued that the knowledge transfer was halted because the grievor lacked the necessary foundational skills in MS Access, and that its decisions were based on operational requirements and client feedback.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding no evidence that the employer's actions, even if flawed or unfair, were tainted by racial discrimination.

At the commencement of the hearing, the union and the employer agreed to adjourn the matter sine die.

The grievor requested that another hearing date be set.

The Vice-Chair ruled that the grievor lacks standing to advance such a request, as only the union and the employer have standing to schedule a hearing before the Grievance Settlement Board.

The grievor, a Lab Attendant, filed grievances alleging harassment, discrimination, and unjust dismissal after her employment was terminated for failing to return to work or provide a medical certificate.

After numerous hearing days, the parties agreed to have the Board decide the matter based on the evidence heard to date under Article 22.16 of the Collective Agreement.

The Board found that the employment relationship was irreparably damaged and ordered the terms of a Memorandum of Settlement into effect, with minor alterations regarding career transition support and tuition payments.

In an interim decision during a grievance arbitration, the union sought an adjournment to contact individuals and recall an employer witness for further cross-examination.

The union argued it was surprised by the witness's denial of having complained to management about a co-worker.

The employer objected, asserting the union had prior notice of the denial.

The Vice-Chair reviewed the hearing notes and concluded the union had been clearly informed during earlier cross-examination that the witness would deny the allegations.

Consequently, the union's request to recall the witness was denied.

In a grievance alleging discrimination on the basis of race, colour, and ethnicity regarding the denial of developmental opportunities, the employer moved for a non-suit after the union closed its case.

The Vice-Chair reviewed the legal principles governing non-suit motions, noting that the standard is whether a prima facie case has been established, not a balance of probabilities.

The motion for non-suit was dismissed without written reasons, in accordance with the Board's practice and the parties' agreement, and the hearing was ordered to continue.

The union requested to consolidate a discharge grievance with an ongoing harassment grievance before the same Vice-Chair.

The employer agreed on the condition that a previous discipline grievance also be consolidated and heard first.

The union objected, arguing that joining the grievances would unduly delay the discharge hearing.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered that all four grievances be consolidated, finding that the suspension grievance must precede the dismissal grievance to properly determine the state of the grievor's disciplinary record, and adjourned the harassment grievance until the completion of those proceedings.

The Union filed grievances alleging that the Employer violated the collective agreement by failing to pay negotiated wage increases to correctional officers while they were on temporary acting assignments as non-bargaining unit Operational Managers.

The Union argued that under the collective agreement, employees on temporary assignment outside the bargaining unit remain covered by the agreement and are entitled to its negotiated wage increases.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievances, finding that while the collective agreement continues to apply, an employee's pay is tied to the classification of the work they are performing during the temporary assignment, not their home position.

The Board also found that the Union would be equitably estopped from enforcing its interpretation due to a lengthy past practice of tying acting pay to the acting position.

The union filed health and safety grievances seeking monetary compensation for a workplace injury.

The employer brought a preliminary motion arguing that the Grievance Settlement Board lacked jurisdiction to award monetary compensation because the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act (WSIA) grants exclusive jurisdiction over such compensation to the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board.

The Board dismissed the employer's motion, finding that while the predecessor legislation extinguished 'all rights and rights of action', section 26(2) of the current WSIA only extinguishes 'rights of action'.

Since a grievance is not an action, the Board retained its remedial jurisdiction to award compensation for a violation of the collective agreement.

The grievor, a Probation and Parole Officer, received a 20-day suspension for substandard case management following an audit.

The Union raised a preliminary objection, arguing the Employer breached the duty of fairness and deprived the grievor of union representation by failing to disclose the intended level of discipline during pre-disciplinary meetings.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the objection, finding no right under the collective agreement or the Labour Relations Act to union representation at pre-disciplinary meetings, and holding that the duty of fairness does not require an employer to discuss the intended level of discipline before imposing it.

The union filed a grievance alleging that the employer violated Article 9.1 of the collective agreement by failing to make reasonable provisions for the health and safety of employees at the Toronto Jail.

The union argued that inmate overcrowding and staff shortages led to excessive overtime, which created health and safety risks, including job strain and effort-reward imbalance.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that the union's expert evidence on job strain was unreliable due to potential selection and reporting biases.

The arbitrator also concluded that the literature did not support a causal relationship between long work hours and adverse health outcomes, and that the employer's reliance on voluntary overtime did not constitute a failure to make reasonable provisions for health and safety.

The grievor applied for a Photocopy/Mail Clerk position and scored the highest in the interview.

However, the employer disqualified her, concluding she must have had advance knowledge of the interview questions and preferred answers because her responses were concise and closely matched the preferred answers.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the employer's conclusion was arbitrary and unreasonable, as the grievor had extensive experience in the role and had diligently studied publicly available materials, including the Canada Customs website, which the employer had used to create the questions.

The grievance was allowed, and the employer was ordered to place the grievor in the position and make her whole.

The employer brought a motion to strike out portions of the union's particulars alleging discrimination against the grievor, arguing that the allegations predated the grievor's 1996 reinstatement and were inherently prejudicial due to the passage of time.

The Grievance Settlement Board agreed, finding that the grievor's return to work in January 1996 provided a significant breaking point.

The Board ruled that evidence of events prior to January 15, 1996 was inadmissible, balancing probity and prejudice.