Jorge Hurtado

The union filed a grievance seeking the return or payout of the grievor's excess vacation entitlement from 2021.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the grievance as untimely, noting it was filed over three years after the issue was first raised.

The arbitrator found the union failed to make a case for extending the time limits, as the delay was substantial and the grievor had managed to file and settle other grievances during the same period.

Furthermore, the arbitrator held that even if the grievance were timely, the collective agreement clearly did not permit the carryover of more than one year's vacation entitlement or the payout of unused days.

The grievance was dismissed.

At a case management hearing, the parties confirmed that one of the two grievances filed on behalf of the grievor had been settled.

The arbitrator noted that she was no longer seized of the settled grievance.

For the remaining active grievance regarding the conversion of a fixed-term position to a regular position, the arbitrator issued a procedural order setting deadlines for the employer to provide production and for the union to provide full particulars ahead of the scheduled hearing on the merits.

The union filed a grievance alleging violations of the collective agreement.

The employer raised preliminary objections regarding the timeliness of the grievance and whether it presented a prima facie breach.

The arbitrator issued a scheduling order directing the union to produce medical documentation and an outline of the grievor's anticipated viva voce evidence, and set a hearing date for the preliminary objections.

The grievor, a fixed-term employee, alleged that the employer violated the collective agreement and mistreated her after she suffered a slip and fall at work.

The employer brought a motion to dismiss the grievance for failing to make out a prima facie case, arguing that the grievor had no right to permanent employment and had failed to provide requested particulars.

The arbitrator found the motion to dismiss premature given the grievor's personal circumstances, and ordered the union to provide full particulars by a specified date, failing which the grievance would be dismissed.

The employer brought a motion to limit the remedies available to the grievor, arguing that her claims for lost earnings during an unsuccessful return to work process were essentially claims for compensation for a workplace injury, which fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act (WSIA).

The union argued the claims were for breaches of the collective agreement, the Human Rights Code, and the Occupational Health and Safety Act, specifically regarding the duty to accommodate and provide a safe workplace.

The arbitrator dismissed the employer's motion, finding that the claims invoked rights separate and severable from those under the WSIA and were therefore within the Board's jurisdiction to proceed.

During submissions on preliminary motions relating to a grievance, an electrical power failure in Toronto disconnected the grievor from the virtual hearing.

As counsel would be unable to complete their submissions that day regardless, the arbitrator adjourned the proceedings and scheduled a new date for continuation.

The parties could not agree on the implementation timelines for retroactive adjustments following a decision declaring the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation a paid holiday.

The Union requested a July 1, 2024 implementation date, while the Employer proposed assigning holiday Compensating Time Off credits by August 31, 2024, and paying eligible employees by September 30, 2024.

The Arbitrator adopted the Employer's proposal as the earliest reasonable dates for implementation.

The Union sought a production order for documents related to the grievor's return to work and training materials for the YSO position.

The Arbitrator ordered the Employer to produce notes from return-to-work meetings, correspondence regarding return-to-work efforts, and applicable training materials.

The production was made subject to strict confidentiality and non-disclosure restrictions, particularly regarding sensitive medical records.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued a procedural decision regarding the implementation of its prior ruling that the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation was a paid holiday in 2022.

The parties agreed on the methods for calculating retroactive adjustments but not the timetable.

The Arbitrator directed the Employer to propose deadlines within 30 days, failing which a further hearing would be held.

The Arbitrator remained seized of the implementation issues, including the accumulation of seniority.

Following a prior decision declaring the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation a paid holiday in 2022, the parties disputed the method of calculating retroactive entitlements, interest, and payment timelines.

The Arbitrator issued procedural directions establishing a timetable for the Employer to provide principles for retroactive entitlements and interest, and for the Union to respond, with a further hearing scheduled if the parties cannot agree.

The Union sought production of an Investigation Report and related materials in a grievance arbitration.

On consent of the parties, the Arbitrator ordered the Employer to produce the requested documents to the Union.

The production was made subject to strict confidentiality conditions, including restrictions on copying, distribution, and use of the documents solely for the purpose of the arbitration.

Several public sector unions filed grievances against the Crown in Right of Ontario, arguing that the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation should be recognized as a paid holiday under their respective collective agreements.

The collective agreements provided that employees were entitled to any special holiday 'proclaimed by the Governor General or Lieutenant Governor'.

The employer argued that the holiday was created by Royal Assent to a statute, rather than by an executive proclamation, and therefore did not fall within the collective agreement language.

The arbitrator rejected the employer's argument, finding that the parties intended to include any new holiday established by the federal or provincial government, and that Royal Assent by written declaration constituted a proclamation.

The grievances were upheld.

In advance of a discharge grievance hearing, the union requested the production of an investigation report and related materials.

The arbitrator ordered the employer to produce the investigation report, appendices, and non-privileged materials considered by the investigator.

The production was made subject to strict confidentiality conditions, including restrictions on copying, electronic distribution, and sharing with the grievor.

The parties jointly requested a consent order for the production of an investigation report and related materials in a discharge grievance.

The arbitrator granted the request and ordered the employer to produce the documents subject to agreed-upon confidentiality and use conditions.

In a grievance arbitration concerning whether the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation is a paid holiday under various collective agreements, the employer sought to introduce evidence regarding its consultations with Indigenous partners and its reasons for treating the day as one of learning and reflection rather than a paid holiday.

The unions objected to the admission of this evidence.

The arbitrator ruled the evidence inadmissible, finding that it was irrelevant to the mutual intention of the parties at the time the collective agreements were negotiated and would cause unnecessary delay and prejudice.

The grievor failed to attend the scheduled virtual grievance arbitration hearing.

Union counsel advised they could not proceed without the grievor, necessitating an adjournment.

The arbitrator ordered the grievor to provide reasons for his non-attendance by a specified date, failing which the grievance may be dismissed.

If reasons are provided, the employer may bring a motion to dismiss based on the failure to attend.

The union requested a hearing regarding the implementation of a Memorandum of Settlement, alleging the employer failed to procure an independent third party to facilitate a workplace discussion within the agreed 60-day timeframe.

The arbitrator ordered the employer to advise the union of the successful bidder by a specified date and set expectations for the commencement of the facilitation process, remaining seized of any further implementation issues.

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 Grievance Settlement Board issued case management directions regarding 34 grievances filed by employees at the Ministry's Windsor office.

The Union was directed to file particulars and detail its disclosure request by December 1, 2021.

The Employer was directed to respond to the disclosure request and indicate any preliminary issues by January 17, 2022, ahead of the next hearing date.