19 total
Similar fact evidence of prior managerial misconduct excluded; extrinsic evidence of past practice admitted conditionally.
In a grievance arbitration concerning a casual employee's entitlement to a paid rest period and an allegedly retaliatory transfer, the Union sought to introduce similar fact evidence of prior intimidation by a manager, as well as extrinsic evidence of past practice to interpret the collective agreement and establish estoppel.
The Grievance Settlement Board ruled that the similar fact evidence was inadmissible, as the prior incidents lacked striking similarity to the current grievance and admitting them would cause undue prejudice and delay.
However, the Board permitted the Union to introduce extrinsic evidence regarding past practice, reserving judgment on whether it disclosed a latent or patent ambiguity in the collective agreement or established an estoppel against the Employer.
Grievance arbitration adjourned to allow transferred employee to confirm reliance on the Human Rights Code.
The Union grieved the Employer's unilateral transfer of a store manager to a vacant position without posting it, alleging a violation of the Collective Agreement.
The Employer argued it had the management right to transfer employees laterally before posting vacancies, and noted the transfer accommodated the employee's personal and medical needs.
As the transferred employee appeared on his own behalf and his rights under the Human Rights Code could potentially override other considerations, the Grievance Settlement Board adjourned the proceedings to allow him time to consult counsel and confirm whether he will rely on the Code to defend his transfer.
Grievance dismissed; discharge upheld for employee theft where gambling addiction was not substantiated by medical evidence.
The grievor, a customer service representative at the LCBO, was discharged after stealing a case of cognac.
He subsequently pleaded guilty to theft under $5,000.
At arbitration, the union argued that the grievor's misconduct was caused by a gambling addiction and sought reinstatement with a substituted penalty under s. 48(17) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.
The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding insufficient medical or expert evidence to establish that a gambling problem caused the theft or to demonstrate a positive prognosis for rehabilitation.
The Board concluded that the trust necessary for the employment relationship had been irreparably broken.
Employer ordered to produce workplace investigation notes and related documents to the union.
The union requested the production of certain documents in advance of a scheduled hearing before the Grievance Settlement Board.
The Vice-Chair ordered the employer to produce copies of all notes made during the investigation that resulted in the grievor's discipline, including interviews with co-workers, conclusions made by the employer, names of interviewed employees, a copy of a note left on the complainant's locker, and any other undisclosed material in the investigation file.
The produced documents were ordered to be treated with confidentiality and used only for the proceeding.
Employer ordered to produce scoring forms and personnel files for a promotion grievance.
The union sought an order for particulars and disclosure from the employer in relation to a job competition and promotion grievance.
The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the employer to provide the requested documents, including questionnaire score forms, personnel files, and relevant policies, subject to confidentiality conditions.
Employer ordered to provide union with grievor's contact information.
The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the employer to provide the union with the grievor's telephone number and e-mail address following a conference call.
Motion for production of incumbents' personnel files and interview notes granted in promotion grievance.
The union grieved the employer's failure to appoint the grievor to a Building Maintenance Mechanic position, arguing he was the most senior qualified candidate.
The union brought a motion for production of the successful candidates' personnel files and their interview questions and answers.
The employer opposed, arguing the documents were not relevant.
The Grievance Settlement Board granted the motion, finding the documents were arguably relevant to establishing the threshold qualifications set by the employer and the grievor's own qualifications.
Union's application for interim relief to prevent alleged employer reprisals for filing grievances denied.
The Union applied for interim relief in the form of a cease and desist order against the Employer, alleging that the Employer threatened and transferred the grievor in reprisal for raising a scheduling grievance.
The Union argued that the Employer's actions had a chilling effect on other bargaining unit members.
The Grievance Settlement Board denied the application, finding that the Union failed to establish that the balance of harm favoured granting the relief.
The Board noted that the requested order would essentially restate existing legislative prohibitions against reprisals, for which significant remedies already exist, and that granting the order would inappropriately predetermine a central issue in the case.
Grievor ordered assigned as a permanent full-time Customer Service Representative following mediation/arbitration.
The parties agreed to a mediation/arbitration process to resolve multiple grievances filed by the union on behalf of the grievor.
The Vice-Chair issued a decision without reasons, directing the employer to assign the grievor as a permanent full-time Customer Service Representative to a store in the London geographical area.
The order fully and finally disposed of all the noted grievances.
Production of union training manuals and EI information denied at preliminary stage of termination grievance.
In a grievance regarding the termination of an employee, the Union brought a preliminary motion alleging the Employer breached the collective agreement by failing to provide advance notice of a meeting and the right to union representation.
The Employer sought production of the Union's training manuals and information regarding the grievor's receipt of Employment Insurance.
The Vice-Chair ordered the exchange of notes and particulars but declined to order the production of training manuals or EI information at this stage, finding them irrelevant or premature.
Third party's request for formal confidentiality undertaking denied; prior direction limiting use of disclosed information deemed sufficient.
In a discharge grievance involving allegations that the grievor improperly obtained air miles, the Union sought disclosure of the Employer's cost per reward mile.
The Employer and a third party, Loyalty Management Group Canada Inc., argued the information was highly confidential.
The Vice Chair directed the Employer to disclose the information to the Union, subject to a condition that it only be used for the arbitration proceeding.
The third party subsequently requested that the Union and grievor be required to execute a formal Undertaking with a liquidated damages clause.
The Vice Chair dismissed the third party's request, finding that the previous direction was sufficient to protect the confidential information and consistent with the Board's general approach.
Employer ordered to disclose confidential cost of air miles to Union in discharge arbitration.
In a pre-hearing conference call regarding an employee's discharge for allegedly obtaining air miles on customer purchases, the Union requested the Employer to disclose its cost for an air mile.
The Employer argued the information was confidential and irrelevant.
The Grievance Settlement Board found the information arguably relevant and ordered its disclosure, subject to the condition that it only be used for the proceeding.
Grievance dismissed; assigning an employee to be in charge of a shift is not a temporary appointment.
The union grieved that the employer failed to assign the grievor, a Customer Service Representative, to be in charge of the store during afternoon shifts when the store manager and assistant manager were absent, arguing that such assignments should be based on seniority.
The union claimed these assignments constituted filling a temporary vacancy under the collective agreement.
The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that assigning an employee to be in charge of a shift and paying them a premium did not amount to appointing them to a temporary vacancy in a higher classification, and therefore the seniority provisions for temporary appointments did not apply.
Consent order issued for disclosure and particulars in policy grievance regarding permanent vacancy review.
The union filed a policy grievance alleging violations of the Letter of Agreement on Permanent Vacancy Review.
At the hearing, issues arose regarding disclosure and particulars.
The parties agreed to an order for the employer to provide specific documents and information, and for the union to subsequently advise whether it was pursuing its claim that the employer failed to post the appropriate number of vacancies.
The Board issued the agreed-upon order and remained seized of the grievance.
Job competition process quashed and re-run ordered due to fundamental flaws and improper screening.
The union grieved the employer's job competition process for 40 full-time Customer Service Representative positions.
Two grievors were screened out of the interview process due to past discipline, while four others participated but were unsuccessful.
The Grievance Settlement Board found that the employer improperly disqualified the two grievors without considering whether their past discipline was relevant to future performance or if they had been rehabilitated.
Furthermore, the Board held that the entire competition process was fundamentally flawed because the employer relied almost exclusively on a short interview and a mechanical scoring of two performance appraisals, ignoring other relevant information such as complete personnel files, resumes, and supervisor input.
The Board ordered the employer to re-run the competition restricted to the six grievors and the successful incumbents.
Employer ordered to disclose witness statements and interview notes prior to grievance arbitration hearing.
In a grievance arbitration regarding the termination of the grievor's employment, a teleconference was held to address pre-hearing disclosure issues.
The Vice Chair ordered the Employer to provide the Union with all interview notes and statements of bargaining unit witnesses, as well as a specific medical letter.
The Employer also undertook to provide a general outline of the alleged misconduct and a list of witnesses for the first day of the hearing.
Union permitted to raise new estoppel argument mid-hearing as Employer suffered no prejudice.
The Union sought to introduce an estoppel argument regarding the Employer's practice of placing part-time employees into full-time positions, which it had not raised during the grievance procedure or in initial particulars.
The Employer objected, arguing it was too late and would cause prejudice.
The Grievance Settlement Board allowed the Union's motion, finding no prejudice to the Employer as the Union's main witnesses on the issue had not yet testified, the Employer's witnesses could be recalled, and the Employer had sufficient time to prepare before the next hearing date.
OHSA reprisal complaint dismissed for failing to establish a prima facie case and deferring to arbitration.
The applicant filed a complaint under section 50 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, alleging reprisals by the employer regarding his work assignment, a denied promotion, and an improper comment by his manager.
The employer raised preliminary objections that the application did not disclose a prima facie case.
The Board dismissed the complaint, finding no causal nexus between the work assignment and the previous OHSA complaint, noting the promotion issue was already proceeding to grievance arbitration, and declining to inquire into the manager's comment due to its trivial nature and scant prospect of success.
First collective agreement directed to arbitration due to employer's unjustified uncompromising position on benefits.
The union applied for a direction that a first collective agreement for part-time employees be settled by arbitration under section 40a of the Labour Relations Act.
The employer conceded that collective bargaining had been unsuccessful and that it had adopted an uncompromising position regarding benefits.
The Board found that the employer lacked reasonable justification for its uncompromising stance, as its offer was not a 'cadillac' agreement and its fears of setting a precedent for full-time units were unfounded.
The Board directed the settlement of the first collective agreement by arbitration.
