31 total
Grievances dismissed; collective agreement provision calculating continuous service applies only to full-time fixed-term employees.
The Union filed grievances concerning the interpretation of clause 18.1.1(b) of the 2015-17 Central Working Conditions and Employee Benefits Collective Agreement, which determines the continuous service date for fixed-term employees converting to regular status.
The Union argued that a newly added second paragraph applied to all fixed-term employees, relying on bargaining history and prior interpretations.
The Employer maintained that the clear language of the provision restricted its application to full-time fixed-term employees.
The Arbitrator dismissed the grievances, finding that the ordinary and grammatical meaning of 'full-time fixed-term employees' restricted the provision to that specific group, and that the Union failed to establish a shared understanding to the contrary during negotiations.
Grievances dismissed as untimely and outside jurisdiction because they were in substance classification grievances.
The union filed three identical grievances alleging constructive dismissal due to changes made to the grievors' positions in 2020 and 2022.
The employer raised preliminary objections that the grievances were in substance classification grievances outside the Board's jurisdiction and were filed outside the 30-day time limit.
The Arbitrator upheld the preliminary objections, finding the grievances were classification grievances and were not continuing grievances.
The Arbitrator declined to extend the time limit and dismissed the grievances.
Union's production request denied as it sought to discover a differential treatment claim not asserted.
In a grievance concerning the non-renewal of a fixed term Corrections Officer's contract due to availability issues, the Union sought production of schedules and warning letters for 10 other fixed term employees.
The Union argued this would show whether the grievor was treated differently.
The Arbitrator denied the request, finding the documents were not arguably relevant because the Union's particulars alleged discrimination based on disability and failure to accommodate, not differential treatment compared to other employees.
The request improperly sought to discover a case not asserted.
Case management directions and timelines set for production and particulars in overtime distribution grievance.
The parties convened for a mediation/arbitration regarding a group grievance alleging the Employer failed to fairly distribute overtime hours during the 2023 fire season.
Following a brief attempt at mediation, the parties engaged in case management discussions and agreed to a timeline for the delivery of comprehensive particulars, prehearing production requests, and the provision of outstanding production.
The next day of mediation/arbitration was scheduled for April 10, 2025.
Consent order issued setting deadlines for production requests and finalization of an Agreed Statement of Facts.
The union filed a grievance on behalf of the grievor.
During the course of the proceedings, the parties devoted considerable time to addressing production issues to ensure an effective and efficient hearing on the merits.
The parties requested a consent order to address all outstanding production issues.
The arbitrator issued the consent order, setting deadlines for the employer's response to the union's production request, the identification of any outstanding production issues, and the finalization of an Agreed Statement of Facts.
Third-party wellness clinic ordered to produce treatment records to the Employer in grievance arbitration.
In the context of a grievance arbitration, the Employer sought production of treatment records from a third-party wellness clinic, XR Wellness.
A representative of the clinic indicated they possessed the documents but required an order from the Grievance Settlement Board to produce them.
The Arbitrator ordered the clinic to produce all documentation regarding treatments provided to the grievor and another individual between July 2015 and February 2019 to counsel for the Employer.
Grievance dismissed; seven-day suspension upheld for court clerk who left assignment without authorization and acted aggressively.
The union grieved a seven-day suspension imposed on a court clerk for leaving his courtroom assignment without authorization and engaging in conduct contrary to the Respectful Workplace Policy.
The grievor left the courtroom to attend to a personal matter after falsely telling the judge he would be replaced, and subsequently confronted his supervisor in an aggressive and disrespectful manner.
The arbitrator found that the employer established just cause for discipline, as the grievor's actions constituted insubordination and violated the workplace policy.
Given the grievor's failure to take responsibility and his untruthfulness, the arbitrator declined to mitigate the penalty and dismissed the grievance.
Correctional officer's discharge upheld for using excessive force and punching a restrained inmate.
The Grievor, a correctional officer, was discharged after an altercation with an inmate in a maximum-security unit.
The Employer alleged the Grievor used excessive force, including prohibited closed-fist strikes, and engaged in unprofessional behaviour by intentionally intimidating the inmate.
The arbitrator found the Grievor's evidence lacked credibility and preferred the testimony of other correctional officers and video evidence.
The arbitrator concluded the Grievor instigated the physical altercation by invading the inmate's personal space, threatened the inmate, and used excessive force by punching the inmate while he was restrained by other officers.
Finding no significant mitigating factors and noting the Grievor's failure to take responsibility for the most serious misconduct, the arbitrator dismissed the grievance and upheld the discharge.
Mutual production of an intelligence report and medical documents ordered subject to strict confidentiality conditions.
The Arbitrator issued a mutual production order in a grievance proceeding.
The Employer was ordered to produce a redacted OPP Intelligence Report to the Union, and the Union was ordered to produce arguably relevant medical documentation to the Employer.
Both productions were made subject to strict confidentiality conditions, limiting disclosure to counsel and instructing advisors, restricting copying, and prohibiting use outside the proceeding.
Grievances for travel expenses during temporary workplace relocation dismissed as collective agreement only covers travel from headquarters.
The union filed individual grievances on behalf of 14 Court Reporters claiming kilometre rates, travel time, and meal allowance for a period when their workplace was temporarily relocated from Milton to Burlington due to health and safety concerns.
The union relied on travel reports of one grievor showing such payments were made.
The employer clarified that those payments were made because the grievor was required to travel from the Burlington workplace to other locations to perform assigned work, not for commuting from home to the headquarters.
The arbitrator accepted the employer's explanation, finding no violation of the collective agreement, and dismissed the grievances.
Grievance dismissed; temporary relocation of 22 kilometres did not trigger travel benefits under collective agreement.
The union filed a policy grievance alleging that the employer violated the collective agreement by temporarily relocating employees to alternate work sites 22 kilometres away due to mould remediation at their permanent headquarters, without providing travel time or meal allowances.
The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the grievance for failing to disclose a prima facie case.
The Grievance Settlement Board granted the motion, finding that under the collective agreement, a change in headquarters and entitlement to associated benefits requires a relocation of at least 40 kilometres.
As the temporary relocation was only 22 kilometres, the asserted facts could not support a violation of the collective agreement.
Employer ordered to disclose redacted applications and interview records of top eight job competition candidates.
In a job competition grievance, the parties requested a procedural order regarding disclosure.
The Arbitrator ordered the Employer to produce the applications, interview records, and appraisals of the top eight applicants, with personal identifying information redacted and replaced by unique identifiers.
The order also included a confidentiality provision restricting the use of the materials to the present proceeding.
Motion to void discharge for delay dismissed; employer acted promptly upon discovering misconduct allegations.
The Union brought a motion to void the grievor's discharge for alleged sick leave abuse, arguing the Employer delayed its investigation by over two years after receiving a summons related to the grievor's other employment.
The Arbitrator dismissed the motion, finding the Employer had no reasonable basis to suspect misconduct at the time of the summons and acted immediately once it discovered the specific allegations on the College of Nurses website.
The Arbitrator also found no prejudice to the grievor, as she had been dealing with the same allegations in other proceedings.
Employer's request for an adjournment granted due to compelling personal reasons.
The Employer requested an adjournment of a hearing scheduled for January 31, 2023, due to compelling personal reasons.
The Union opposed the request.
Following a conference call, the Arbitrator granted the adjournment and set a timeline for the exchange of particulars and production.
Expert evidence on use of force policy compliance admitted, but opinion on ultimate issue excluded.
During a discharge grievance hearing for a correctional officer terminated for alleged excessive use of force against an inmate, the Employer sought to call an expert witness to provide opinion evidence on the officer's actions.
The Union objected, arguing the arbitrator was capable of assessing the evidence without expert assistance.
Applying the Mohan/White Burgess framework, the arbitrator qualified the witness as an expert in use of force and defensive tactics.
The expert was permitted to testify on whether the officer's actions complied with Ministry policy, but was restricted from providing an opinion on the ultimate issue of whether the force used was excessive, which remained a factual determination for the arbitrator.
Motion to strike particulars granted in part; prior settlement and release barred pre-2015 accommodation facts.
The employer brought a preliminary motion to strike paragraphs of the union's particulars that pre-dated a 2015 grievance filed by the grievor.
The 2015 grievance, which involved family status accommodation and lost overtime, had been settled with a comprehensive release.
The arbitrator held that the settlement and release precluded the union from relying on facts relating to family status accommodation that occurred prior to the 2015 grievance.
However, particulars relating to training issues, which were not covered by the release, and events occurring after the 2015 grievance were permitted to remain.
The motion was granted in part.
Employer ordered to produce redacted inmate health care files subject to strict confidentiality conditions.
In a grievance arbitration, the Union sought production of the health care files and health care file reviews from the Employer's investigation into the deaths of two inmates.
The Arbitrator directed the Employer to produce the requested documents to Union counsel, subject to the redaction of identifying information and strict confidentiality conditions restricting their use and dissemination outside the arbitration process.
Arbitrator issued a confidentiality order restricting the use and disclosure of produced documents.
The arbitrator issued a confidentiality order regarding the production of documents in a grievance proceeding.
The order restricted the release, use, and copying of the documents to the employer's counsel and one advisor for the purposes of the proceeding only.
Employer ordered to produce interview scores and materials subject to strict confidentiality conditions.
In a job competition grievance, the arbitrator ordered the employer to produce the interview scores of the successful candidates and the interview materials for each grievor, including the ideal answers.
The production was subject to strict confidentiality conditions, limiting use to the mediation or litigation of the grievance and requiring destruction or return of the documents at the conclusion of the proceedings.
Grievance dismissed; settlement provision stating employee 'may be contacted' for assignments interpreted as permissive, not mandatory.
The Union filed a grievance alleging the Employer violated Minutes of Settlement (MOS) when it failed to contact the grievor, a Class III operator, for an acting Class IV Overall Responsibility Operator assignment.
The grievor, who had since retired, sought $40,000 in damages for approximately $160 in lost wages.
The arbitrator determined a full hearing was disproportionate to the interests at stake and decided the matter on written submissions.
The arbitrator held that the MOS provision stating the grievor 'may be contacted' was permissive, granting the Employer the right but not the obligation to offer the assignment to the grievor.
The grievance was dismissed.
