Jonathan Rabinovitch

The grievor, a Correctional Officer, was suspended for five days for excessive use of force against an inmate and failing to submit an accurate report.

The incident was captured on video.

The union grieved the suspension, arguing the grievor's actions were appropriate to settle an abusive inmate.

The Grievance Settlement Board reviewed the video and documentary evidence, finding the grievor's version of events inconsistent with the video.

The Board concluded the grievor inappropriately pushed or poked the inmate and attempted to intimidate rather than settle him.

The grievance was dismissed and the five-day suspension upheld.

The applicant requested the consolidation of two human rights applications alleging reprisal by the respondent for filing previous applications.

The respondent opposed consolidation, arguing the factual issues were distinct.

The Tribunal applied the Persaud factors and found that the parties and subject matter were the same.

The Tribunal ordered the applications consolidated to be heard together.

The union filed a grievance alleging that the grievor, an employee of the Windsor Central Ambulance Communications Centre, was improperly scheduled for shifts, resulting in 160 hours of lost time.

Following an expedited hearing, the Grievance Settlement Board issued a ruling without reasons, ordering the employer to compensate the grievor for the 160 hours of lost time and to schedule her for shifts pursuant to standard procedures going forward.

The union requested an adjournment of the hearing because the grievor was on long-term income protection and his illness prevented him from assisting in the preparation of his case.

The employer opposed the request, citing significant delay and diminishing witness recall.

The Grievance Settlement Board granted a six-month adjournment to balance the prejudice to the parties and allow the grievor an opportunity to participate in the litigation.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability, family status, marital status, age, and association.

The respondent requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations related to age discrimination and the failure to accommodate the applicant's undisclosed learning processing disorder and ADHD.

However, the Tribunal allowed the allegations of harassment and termination based on the applicant's spouse's disability, her own situational depression, and her children's disabilities to proceed to a full hearing, as well as the allegation regarding the denial of a vacation request.

The grievor, a fixed-term Correctional Officer, was terminated for allegedly smuggling alcohol and cigarettes to an inmate and lying to the investigator.

The employer relied on testimony from an inmate and the discovery of an empty vodka bottle in the grievor's locker.

The grievor denied the smuggling allegations and claimed the bottle had been in his locker for over a year and a half.

The arbitrator found that the grievor's timeline regarding the bottle was impossible based on its manufacturing date, concluding that the grievor lied on a highly material fact during the investigation and at arbitration.

The grievance was dismissed, as the dishonesty alone justified termination.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination on the basis of sex and family status for the respondent's failure to accommodate her need to breastfeed.

The applicant had also filed a grievance raising the same issues.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer, to which the applicant did not respond.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process, as the grievance arbitrator has the authority to decide human rights claims.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability when she was not hired for a position with the Ministry of Education.

She originally named the Director of the Provincial Schools Branch as the sole respondent.

The respondent requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application for improperly naming her in her personal capacity.

The applicant subsequently requested an order to remove the individual respondent and add the Ministry as the organizational respondent.

The Tribunal applied the test for adding a respondent, found that the request was made at an early stage with no actual prejudice, and granted the amendment.

The respondent's request for a summary hearing was denied.

The applicant alleged age discrimination after he was not selected for an interview for a support analyst position with the respondent.

The respondent requested a summary hearing, arguing the applicant relied only on subjective belief.

The Tribunal found the applicant provided no evidence that the hiring manager knew his age or that his age was a factor in the decision.

The application was dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The union brought a preliminary motion requesting that the employer proceed first in a grievance arbitration concerning the transfer of an accommodated employee.

The grievor had been accommodated in a control room position for several years but was transferred to a newly created radio room position, which she alleged violated her medical restrictions due to claustrophobia.

The union argued the employer should proceed first because it possessed exclusive knowledge of the reasons for the transfer.

The arbitrator dismissed the motion, finding that the employer had placed the grievor in a position it asserted met her restrictions, and the union bore the onus of proving the new accommodation was unsuitable and that the employer violated the collective agreement and the Human Rights Code.

The parties engaged in a mediation-arbitration regarding the termination grievance of the grievor.

The Vice-Chair directed that the grievor be reinstated to employment in accordance with terms to be negotiated by the parties, without precedent and prejudice.

The Union brought a motion to allow Local Union officers to testify about management's failure to enforce a workplace smoking policy without disclosing the names of bargaining unit members they observed smoking.

The Union argued that compelling disclosure would undermine members' confidence in their representatives.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the motion, finding that the Employer's right to fully cross-examine witnesses on a highly relevant issue outweighed any potential labour relations interest in protecting the confidence of Union members in their representatives.

Following a mediation/arbitration process under the collective agreement, the Grievance Settlement Board directed the employer to reinstate seven vacation days to the grievor's bank and to reimburse her $5,000 for medical expenses upon production of receipts.