Jonathan Rabinovitch

The grievor, a classified Correctional Officer, was on a temporary assignment as a Probation and Parole Officer.

After her temporary assignment ended, she was recalled to her home position at a detention centre.

She provided medical documentation stating she could not work as a Correctional Officer or in a correctional environment due to a permanent disability.

The employer insisted she return to her home position and did not explore other accommodation options, including her previous Probation and Parole Officer role.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the employer failed to comply with its procedural and substantive duties to accommodate the grievor under the Human Rights Code.

The Board also found that the employer harassed and bullied the grievor during a return-to-work meeting by aggressively pressuring her to return to her home position despite clear medical restrictions.

Grievances relating to her time on temporary assignment were dismissed.

The grievor failed to attend a scheduled videoconference hearing for her wrongful termination grievance.

The arbitrator directed the grievor to provide a reason for her non-attendance, warning that the matter could be dismissed.

After the grievor failed to respond to multiple communications from union counsel, the employer requested dismissal.

The arbitrator found the grievor had abandoned her grievance and dismissed the matter.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of the grievor alleging wrongful termination.

A hearing was scheduled by videoconference, but the grievor failed to attend.

Union counsel indicated they had been unable to reach the grievor despite multiple attempts.

The arbitrator adjourned the hearing and directed the grievor to provide a reason for her non-attendance by a specified date, failing which the grievance may be dismissed.

The Employer brought preliminary objections to group grievances filed by probation and parole officers regarding the use of a Case Management Review (CMR) process.

The Employer argued the grievances were untimely, lacked particulars, and failed to establish a prima facie case.

The Arbitrator found that the grievances alleged a continuing breach but required specific particulars to assess timeliness.

The Falconi, Cole, and Pereira grievances were dismissed for want of particulars or being untimely.

The Bonacci grievance was permitted to proceed regarding events surrounding an April 3, 2017 CMR, as it was timely and established a prima facie case.

The Union alleged that the Employer breached Minutes of Settlement dated January 13, 2021.

The Arbitrator issued an order directing the grievor to repay $8,341 for 2019 vacation credits by July 1, 2021, to avoid its inclusion on his 2021 T4.

The Employer was ordered to pay the grievor for his accumulated vacation credits for 2019, 2020, and 2021 between January 1 and March 31, 2022.

The Union filed grievances challenging the Employer's calculation of a 1.4% lump sum payment for employees on approved leaves of absence.

The Employer brought a preliminary motion arguing the Union failed to establish a prima facie case, asserting the collective agreement clearly excluded third-party payments (like EI or WSIB) from the calculation.

The Union argued the language included all payments for approved leaves and that excluding third-party payments created an adverse impact based on prohibited grounds under the Human Rights Code.

The Arbitrator dismissed the Employer's motion, finding the Union's Human Rights Code theory was reasonable and capable of supporting a violation if the particulars were proven true.

The Union filed grievances alleging the Employer failed to reasonably accommodate a Correctional Officer with asthma and sensitivity to cigarette smoke, and breached a prior agreement regarding his General Duty Officer (GDO) assignments.

The Arbitrator found that while the Employer's enforcement of the smoking policy did not amount to a failure to accommodate during the relevant period due to a lack of actual exposures, the Employer did breach the GDO Agreement and the Human Rights Code by assigning the grievor fewer and a more limited range of duties compared to other GDOs.

The Employer's discriminatory treatment caused the grievor significant psychological harm, including PTSD.

The Arbitrator awarded $3,000 for breach of the agreement, $25,000 in general damages, and $20,000 for mental anguish.

The union filed multiple grievances alleging that the grievor was subjected to harassment, discrimination, a poisoned work environment, and reprisal by her co-workers and management at the Ministry of Transportation following a health reassignment.

The grievor sought $10 million in damages.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievances, relying on extensive medical evidence from multiple Independent Medical Examinations which concluded that the grievor suffered from a psychiatric impairment characterized by paranoid delusions and a persecution complex.

The arbitrator found that the grievor's perceptions of harassment were fundamentally compromised by her medical condition and that the employer had acted reasonably and appropriately in investigating her complaints and managing her accommodation.

The Employer sought production of documents in the Union's possession that the grievor received from the Waterloo Regional Police in September 2013, pertaining to her allegations regarding a workplace incident on October 28, 2011.

The Arbitrator ordered the Union to produce the documents to the Employer.

In a grievance arbitration, the employer sought to lead its evidence in chief by way of a 'will say' statement.

The union objected.

The arbitrator noted that while the Grievance Settlement Board has the authority to allow 'will say' statements, the practice is to encourage them only with the agreement of the parties.

Given the complicated and heavily disputed facts of the case, the arbitrator ruled it was not appropriate to permit the employer to use a 'will say' statement for its main witness against the union's wishes.

The complainant filed a complaint alleging workplace bullying, harassment, and failure to accommodate.

The employer raised preliminary objections arguing that the complaint was filed outside the mandatory time limits set out in O. Reg. 378/07 under the Public Service of Ontario Act.

The Board found that the complainant failed to file her notice to the deputy minister within 14 days of becoming aware of the alleged breach, and failed to file her complaint with the Board within 14 days after the expiry of the dispute resolution period.

As the timelines are mandatory and the Board has no jurisdiction to relieve against them, the complaint was dismissed.

The complainant filed a grievance alleging that the employer failed to accommodate her at the workplace following a medical leave of absence due to alleged bullying and harassment.

The employer raised preliminary objections, arguing that the complaint was filed outside the mandatory timelines set out in Regulation 378/07 under the Public Service of Ontario Act.

The Public Service Grievance Board found that the complainant became aware of the alleged violation of a working condition months before filing her notice with the Deputy Minister, and further failed to file her complaint with the Board within 14 days after the expiry of the dispute resolution period.

As the timelines in the Regulation are mandatory, the Board concluded it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the complaint.

Following unsuccessful mediation in a mediation-arbitration process, the arbitrator issued procedural directions to expedite the arbitration.

The union was directed to provide a Will Say statement from the grievor detailing alleged collective agreement violations, and the employer was directed to provide a Will Say statement outlining the reasons for a letter of reprimand.

A conference call and potential hearing date were scheduled.

Following his reinstatement, the complainant argued that his earnings from alternate sources should be applied towards his legal fees rather than deducted from the retroactive compensation owed by the employer.

The employer argued this was a disguised claim for legal costs.

The Public Service Grievance Board dismissed the complainant's request, finding that legal costs and mitigation are separate legal categories.

The Board reaffirmed its practice of declining to award costs except in cases of egregious employer misconduct, which was not present here.

The complainant filed a grievance in 2012, which was adjourned pending the resolution of a similar matter.

Following the resolution of that matter, both the employer and the Board attempted to contact the complainant without success.

The complainant had left the public service and her contact information was no longer valid.

As there had been no contact from the complainant since 2012, the Board dismissed the complaint as abandoned.

In the context of a grievance arbitration, the parties agreed to the disclosure of the grievor's WSIB information to Employer counsel.

The Arbitrator issued a consent direction ordering the disclosure subject to strict confidentiality conditions, including that the documents only be provided to Employer counsel, not be copied further, be used solely for the preparation of the Employer's case, and be returned to Union counsel at the conclusion of the proceedings.

The defendants brought a motion to strike several causes of action from the plaintiff's wrongful dismissal and workplace harassment claim.

The court struck the claims against the individual defendants for breach of fiduciary duty, failure to provide a safe work environment, harassment, and discrimination under the Human Rights Code, finding they were not properly pleaded as independent torts or lacked material facts.

The claim against the employer for failure to provide a safe work environment was also struck.

The court allowed the claim for intentional infliction of mental suffering against one individual defendant to proceed.

The plaintiff was granted leave to amend the struck claims.

The union sought disclosure of certain documents in a grievance arbitration.

The arbitrator ordered the employer to disclose the Grace Shore Report and all communications between Dr. Dermer and the employer regarding the independent medical examination the grievor underwent in 2014.

The complainant, an Operational Manager at a detention centre, was terminated for failing to properly intervene in an inmate-on-inmate assault and for failing to complete compatibility assessments.

The employer argued his lack of action and poor judgment warranted discharge.

The Public Service Grievance Board found that while the complainant's failure to take control of the situation and repeat his direction to open the cell door was serious misconduct, he was not solely responsible.

Applying the McKinley factors, the Board concluded that the employment relationship could be repaired given the complainant's discipline-free record, insight, and remorse.

The termination was substituted with a six-month unpaid suspension and reinstatement.

The grievor, a correctional officer, was terminated for failing to intervene in an altercation between two inmates and for allegedly kicking an inmate while he was on the floor.

The arbitrator found that the grievor failed to take timely action to stop the assault, such as giving verbal commands or using pepper spray.

However, the arbitrator concluded that the grievor's contact with the inmate's leg was a minimal push to gain compliance, which was inappropriate but did not constitute an excessive use of force under the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act.

Given the grievor's long service and clean disciplinary record, the termination was substituted with a 30-day unpaid suspension.