Jonathan Rabinovitch

The complainant, a correctional officer, alleged that the employer prevented her from accessing long-term disability benefits by failing to complete and submit required documents to the insurance carrier.

The Public Service Grievance Board found that the employer had submitted the necessary "Employer's Statement" and that the delay and subsequent closure of the claim were due to the complainant's own failure to submit the required "Employee's Statement".

The complaint was dismissed for lack of evidence supporting the allegations against the employer.

The union requested the scheduling of four additional hearing dates for multiple grievances filed by a Correctional Officer.

The employer objected, arguing that scheduling dates before the outcome of the currently scheduled February 2019 dates could result in unnecessary cancellation costs if a settlement is reached.

The arbitrator ruled that four additional days would be scheduled beyond 30 calendar days from the last scheduled February date, ensuring no cancellation charges would be incurred if the dates are cancelled by that time.

The complainant filed three complaints alleging the employer withheld documents related to a long-term disability claim, failed to accommodate her, and engaged in workplace harassment.

Following an unsuccessful mediation, the Public Service Grievance Board issued preliminary directions requiring the parties to exchange documents and submissions regarding the disability claim, and scheduled a conference call to determine the next steps for all complaints.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision dismissing his claim that his union breached its duty of fair representation.

The applicant alleged bias and bad faith by a union representative who refused to seek judicial review of a dismissed grievance.

The Divisional Court found the Board's decision reasonable, noting no evidence of bias or bad faith.

The court also dismissed allegations of procedural fairness and bias against the Board Vice-Chair, finding the consultation process was permitted under the Labour Relations Act.

The application for judicial review was dismissed with costs awarded to the union.

The Union filed a group grievance alleging the Employer violated the Collective Agreement and the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act by inadvertently posting employees' personal information on a public drive.

The arbitrator found the breach was inadvertent and the information was posted for a short period.

Relying on similar precedent, the arbitrator ordered the Employer to pay $2,000 to the Union for equal distribution among the affected grievors.

The grievor, a courtroom clerk registrar, went on long-term income protection (LTIP) and subsequently moved to England to attend a two-year law program.

Her LTIP benefits were terminated due to her relocation.

The employer granted a short-term educational leave of absence but denied further extensions due to operational needs and staffing shortages.

The grievor then requested a medical leave of absence but failed to provide supporting medical documentation despite repeated requests and warnings.

After being absent without approved leave for over two weeks, the employer declared that she had abandoned her position under section 42 of the Public Service of Ontario Act.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievances, finding that the employer's denial of the leave requests was reasonable and that the statutory requisites for abandonment were met.

The union filed a grievance alleging that the grievor was improperly laid off or terminated from the position of Maintenance Mechanic and not recalled in accordance with the collective agreement.

The matter proceeded to expedited mediation/arbitration under the collective agreement.

The arbitrator considered the parties' submissions on the undisputed facts and the collective agreement language.

The grievance was denied without precedent or prejudice, in accordance with the parties' policy for expedited hearings.

The Employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss several particulars filed by the Union, arguing they constituted an improper expansion of the original grievances and were untimely.

The original grievances contested the Employer's denial of the grievor's request for a leave of absence and the subsequent termination of her employment for abandonment.

The disputed particulars alleged a failure to accommodate the grievor's disability over a four-year period prior to the grievances.

The Arbitrator granted the motion in part, finding that the accommodation claims were not reasonably part of the original grievances and thus constituted an improper expansion.

Alternatively, the Arbitrator found the accommodation claims were untimely and declined to extend the time limits under section 48(16) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Arbitrator found the original grievances regarding the leave of absence were timely filed.

The complainant filed a reprisal complaint alleging that the employer's written submissions in a previous proceeding before the Board were prejudicial and constituted an act of reprisal.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the complaint.

The Board held that the statements made by the employer in its legal pleadings were protected by absolute legal privilege and could not form the basis of a reprisal complaint.

The complaint was dismissed.

The Union alleged that the Employer breached a Memorandum of Settlement (MOS) regarding the grievor's use of the Short Term Sickness Plan (STSP) for a reduced work week accommodation.

The MOS stipulated that the use of STSP for this accommodation would cease.

Prior to the cut-off date, the grievor submitted a medical note recommending she remain off work for five days a week if the two-day STSP accommodation was unavailable, despite noting that occupational tasks were beneficial.

The Arbitrator found that the Employer did not breach the MOS by refusing to expand the STSP benefits to five days per week, as the MOS intended to halt the use of STSP for this purpose and the medical evidence did not support total disability.

The grievor, a Client Representative, went off work following a car accident and claimed long-term income protection (LTIP) benefits for the 'own occupation' period.

The insurance carrier denied the claim on the basis that she was not totally disabled, citing a lack of objective evidence of cognitive impairment.

The arbitrator found that the grievor's job required significant cognitive demands and that her diminished cognitive efficiency, as confirmed by an independent medical examination, prevented her from performing her essential duties efficiently and accurately.

The arbitrator held that the absence of objective evidence was not a valid reason to deny the claim, given the credible self-reporting of symptoms.

The grievance was allowed, and the grievor was found to be totally disabled during the relevant period.

The Union failed to comply with a September 6, 2016 production order requiring the disclosure of the grievor's medical and benefits records.

After more than a year of non-compliance and the cancellation of previously scheduled hearing dates, the Union requested a new date to address other production issues.

The Employer resisted.

The Arbitrator directed the Registrar to set the matter down for a one-day hearing specifically to address the Union's failure to comply with the production order and the appropriate consequences.

In a claims review proceeding regarding a denial of long-term income protection benefits, the Association sought to introduce a 'Will Say' statement and viva voce testimony from the claimant, as well as two scientific articles.

The employer objected, arguing the collective agreement contemplated an expeditious and informal review based on the record before the Joint Benefits Committee.

The arbitrator held that the 'Will Say' statement would be admitted subject to conditions, including limiting it to the two-year claim period and allowing the employer to cross-examine the claimant.

However, the arbitrator denied the request for additional viva voce testimony and refused to admit the scientific articles, noting that doing so would undermine the expedition and informality required by the collective agreement.

The complainant filed a complaint challenging his disciplinary suspension.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the complaint on the basis that it was untimely.

The complainant acknowledged that he did not notify the Deputy Minister within the mandatory 14-day period set out in Regulation 378/07 under the Public Service of Ontario Act.

The Public Service Grievance Board held that the timelines are mandatory and it has no jurisdiction to extend them.

The employer's motion was granted and the complaint was dismissed.

The Union requested four additional hearing dates in anticipation of the matter proceeding to hearing.

The Employer resisted setting dates until the Union complied with a prior production order for the grievor's medical records and benefit applications.

The Vice-Chair directed the parties to set four additional dates, but ordered the Union to provide confirmation of best efforts to comply with the production order within 30 days, and to satisfy the order by September 29, 2017, failing which the additional dates would be cancelled.

The complainant sought an order directing the employer to pay a revised amount under their Minutes of Settlement to reflect a retroactive pay increase awarded to her former job class.

The employer argued the settlement amount was fixed and the agreement precluded further compensation.

The Public Service Grievance Board dismissed the motion, finding it lacked equitable jurisdiction to amend the clear and express terms of the negotiated settlement agreement.

The Complainant, an Oracle Business Analyst, was discharged after an investigation found a USB key belonging to him contained drafts of anonymous emails making false allegations against his Branch Director, as well as highly confidential government documents.

The Association grieved the discharge, arguing the evidence was entirely circumstantial and did not conclusively prove the Complainant's involvement.

The Grievance Settlement Board applied the civil standard of proof (balance of probabilities) and rejected the application of the Rule in Hodge's Case to circumstantial evidence in arbitration.

The Board found it more likely than not that the Complainant was involved in sending the anonymous emails and knowingly possessed the confidential documents.

Given his steadfast denial and lack of remorse, the Board upheld the discharge and dismissed the grievance.

The applicant filed two human rights applications alleging discrimination in employment.

The Tribunal considered whether to consolidate the applications, reactivate the first application, and defer the second application pending the conclusion of a related grievance and arbitration process.

The Tribunal ordered the applications consolidated due to substantial overlap in facts and issues.

The request to reactivate the first application was denied, and the second application was deferred, as the related grievance process, including a judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision, had not yet concluded.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Grievance Settlement Board decision dismissing a grievance that sought to hold the employer vicariously liable for a fellow employee's tort of intrusion upon seclusion.

The fellow employee had used the employer's equipment to access the grievor's Employment Insurance records.

The Divisional Court held that the applicable standard of review was reasonableness.

Applying the principles from Bazley v Curry, the court found the Tribunal's conclusion that the wrongful act was not sufficiently related to conduct authorized by the employer to be reasonable.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging workplace bullying and harassment based on ethnic origin.

The respondent requested that the application be deferred because the applicant had also filed union grievances based on the same facts, which were scheduled for arbitration before the Grievance Settlement Board.

The Tribunal found that the Grievance Settlement Board had jurisdiction to interpret and apply the Human Rights Code and deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process.