Kelly Burke

The Union filed grievances alleging that court reporters were forced to perform authorized duties (preparation of transcripts) on overtime hours without overtime pay, contrary to the collective agreement.

The Employer argued that transcript preparation was not bargaining unit work and that court reporters acted as independent contractors when performing this function.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the preparation and certification of transcripts is an integral part of a court reporter's job, subject to significant control and oversight by the Ministry.

Applying the tests for independent contractor status, the Board concluded that court reporters are employees, not independent contractors, when preparing transcripts.

The Board declared that the preparation and certification of transcripts is bargaining unit work.

In a grievance arbitration under the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act, the Grievance Settlement Board ordered the Union to provide the tax return information and documentation of the grievor and other witnesses from 1990 forward.

The Board noted it would consider requests by the Employer for additional tax years if the evidence indicated a need.

The union filed grievances on behalf of unclassified employees, alleging they were performing the work of a higher-rated classification and should be paid at that equivalent civil service classification rate under the collective agreement.

The employer raised a preliminary objection, arguing the grievances were disguised classification grievances over which the Grievance Settlement Board lacks jurisdiction under the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act.

The Board agreed with the employer, finding that determining the equivalent classification for wage purposes would require evaluating whether the grievors were performing the work of a different classification, which is a classification issue reserved for the Joint System Subcommittee.

The grievances were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The Employer moved to dismiss the proceeding on the basis that the Union failed to comply with a Board order regarding the production of the grievor's tax returns.

The grievor had made significant efforts to obtain the documents, but faced difficulties due to the unexpected death of her accountant.

The Board found no intentional disregard of the order and concluded that the missing documents were not central to the case.

The motion to dismiss was denied, though further efforts to obtain the tax returns were ordered.

The Union sought interim relief to prevent the Employer from terminating a temporary transfer agreement that allowed the grievor to work at the Milton courthouse instead of her home position at the Dufferin/Finch courthouse.

The grievor alleged the termination was in retaliation for her union activities and grievances.

The Employer argued the termination was due to operational needs and the expiration of the agreement.

The Grievance Settlement Board found it had jurisdiction and that there was an arguable case on the merits.

However, balancing the harm, the Board concluded that the potential harm to the Employer, including operational concerns and ongoing workplace conflict due to harassment allegations, outweighed the inconvenience to the grievor of commuting to the Dufferin/Finch location.

The motion for interim relief was denied.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Grievance Settlement Board decision that upheld a union grievance after the employer's consultant destroyed interview notes.

The Board found that the destruction of these documents irreparably prejudiced the union's case and prevented a fair hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Board did not deny natural justice by deciding the matter on a preliminary fairness issue without hearing the merits.

The Court further held that the Board had the implied statutory authority to enforce disclosure obligations by allowing the grievance.

During a grievance arbitration regarding whether transcript preparation is bargaining unit work, the Employer requested the complete income tax records of the grievor and other union witnesses.

The Union objected to disclosing the specific financial amounts, arguing they were irrelevant and subject to privacy interests.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that the specific numbers on the tax returns were not arguably relevant to the issues in dispute or to the Employer's potential liability.

The Board ordered the Union to produce redacted tax returns showing only the categories of income and deductions claimed, with all specific numbers and personal information blacked out.

The grievor, a seasonal employee, was discharged after stealing $16,445.25 from gate receipts.

The Board previously found just cause for discipline but adjourned the hearing to allow the union to provide medical evidence regarding the grievor's capacity to participate and particulars for mitigation of the penalty.

The union failed to comply with the Board's order, citing difficulties obtaining medical reports and instructions from the grievor.

The only medical evidence provided indicated the grievor was medically unfit for gainful employment.

Given the seriousness of the thefts, the failure to comply with the order, and the lack of prospects for mitigation evidence, the Board dismissed the grievance.

The Employer brought motions to dismiss a group grievance and a policy grievance concerning overtime pay for transcript preparation, arguing the Union had abandoned identical grievances filed in 1990.

The Employer also moved to strike evidence relating to 1990-1993 settlement discussions on the basis of privilege.

The Grievance Settlement Board denied the motions to dismiss, finding that while the Union's multi-year delay in pursuing the grievances created a rebuttable inference of acquiescence, the specific negotiation history rebutted that inference and the Employer suffered no detriment.

However, the Board granted the motion to strike, ruling that the parties' agreement that their discussions were 'without prejudice or precedent' protected the evidence from being used against the Employer.

In a grievance arbitration regarding statutory holiday pay for essential workers during a strike, the union sought interest on the monies owed.

The employer argued the union was estopped from claiming interest because it was only raised on the last day of the hearing.

The arbitrator rejected the estoppel argument, finding no detrimental reliance by the employer.

The employer was directed to pay interest on monies owing under the expired collective agreement and on the retroactive wage increase, with the latter accruing from the date the retroactive payments were reasonably completed.

The grievor was discharged from her employment as a seasonal parks clerk for misappropriating over $16,000 in gate receipts.

She subsequently pled guilty and was convicted of theft in criminal court.

At the grievance arbitration, the employer sought a ruling that the criminal conviction constituted conclusive evidence of the theft under the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act and the Public Service Act.

The Board agreed, finding the conviction established just cause for discipline as a matter of law.

However, the Board granted an adjournment to allow the union to present evidence regarding mitigation of the penalty, as the grievor was unable to participate due to her mental health.

The Grievance Settlement Board determined the entitlement of correctional workers to holiday pay for Good Friday and Easter Monday during the 2002 strike.

The employer argued that correctional workers on the emergency part of their rotation should be treated as emergency employees, only covered by the collective agreement when called to work.

The union argued they were essential workers covered throughout the strike.

The Vice-Chair ruled that because correctional workers were designated to provide essential services, they were covered by the collective agreement for the entire duration of the work stoppage, provided they performed any work during it, and are therefore entitled to holiday pay.

The union grieved the employer's refusal to pay holiday pay for Good Friday and Easter Monday to essential and emergency workers during a 2002 strike.

In a previous decision, the arbitrator ruled that entitlement depended on whether there was a 'reasonable nexus' between the work performed and the benefit claimed.

After receiving written submissions, the arbitrator concluded that a sufficient nexus existed.

Emergency workers were covered by the collective agreement if the holiday fell between the assignment and completion of work, and essential workers had scheduled hours throughout the strike.

The arbitrator ordered that any employee covered by the collective agreement on the holidays in question is entitled to holiday pay.

The Union moved to consolidate a policy grievance filed in August 2003 with an earlier group grievance filed in May 2001.

The group grievance claimed that court reporters were forced to perform authorized duties on overtime hours without overtime pay.

The policy grievance sought a declaration that the preparation and certification of transcripts is bargaining unit work.

The Employer opposed the motion, arguing the grievances were different.

The Grievance Settlement Board granted the motion to consolidate, finding that both grievances raised common questions of law and fact regarding whether the preparation of transcripts constitutes bargaining unit work subject to the collective agreement's overtime provisions.

The Union requested a teleconference to deal with disclosure issues regarding the grievances of M. Enright.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the Employer to disclose a copy of the full investigation report relied on in the dismissal, including the names of all witnesses, as well as supporting documents and any other documents relied on in terminating the employee.

The Board also ordered, on consent, that the disclosed documents be used solely for preparing the case for mediation or arbitration.

The Union brought a motion for disclosure of the full investigation report and supporting documents relied on by the Employer in dismissing the grievor.

Following a teleconference, the Grievance Settlement Board ordered the Employer to produce the investigation report, including witness names, as well as all supporting documents and witness statements.

The disclosure was ordered subject to a consent confidentiality undertaking restricting the use of the documents to the preparation of the mediation and/or arbitration.

The union filed a policy grievance claiming essential and emergency workers were entitled to holiday pay for Good Friday and Easter Monday, which fell during a 2002 strike.

The arbitrator clarified an earlier interim award, ruling that emergency workers were covered by the collective agreement only in the interval between being scheduled to work and completing all assigned shifts.

For employees who were covered but worked reduced hours, the arbitrator reviewed arbitral jurisprudence on holiday pay during temporary absences and deferred a final ruling pending further submissions on whether a 'reasonable nexus' existed between the holiday pay claimed and the performance of work.

The employer raised a preliminary objection regarding the timeliness of a group grievance filed by court reporters alleging they were forced to perform authorized duties on overtime hours without overtime pay.

The employer argued the grievance was untimely because the change in practice occurred years ago.

The union argued it was a continuing grievance.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the grievance alleged an ongoing failure to comply with the overtime requirements of the collective agreement, rather than a single transaction.

The Board concluded the grievance was a continuing grievance and therefore timely, dismissing the employer's preliminary objection.

The grievor's original position was improperly classified.

While a classification grievance was pending, he promoted to a different position.

The original position was later reclassified to a higher pay level, resulting in a retroactive wage increase for the period before he changed jobs.

The grievor sought compensation for the ongoing difference in pay between his new job and the reclassified original job.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the loss of income was caused by the combination of the employer's erroneous classification and the grievor's subsequent conduct in applying for another job, making the loss too remote a consequence of the breach of contract to be compensable.

The union advanced grievances on behalf of four employees, alleging they were unfairly denied a step-to-step increase and instead only received a 3 per cent promotional increase when moving to a new wage grid.

At the hearing, the union conceded there was insufficient evidence to support the allegation of unfair treatment.

The Vice-Chair dismissed this component of the grievances.

A separate claim regarding one grievor's reclassification remained outstanding and was scheduled for a future hearing.