Kelly Doctor

The parties met to discuss the efficient litigation of a complicated policy grievance involving benefit claims and the interplay between the collective agreement and the insurer's plan documents.

The parties agreed to bifurcate individual remedial claims from the hearing on the merits and established a timeline for the employer to provide a draft agreed statement of facts and a 'will say' statement from any Canada Life witness.

The union grieved the employer's application of a 'reasonable and customary' limit to a claim for massage therapy benefits, which resulted in an $8.00 shortfall for the claimant.

The arbitrator held that the collective agreement's specific provisions regarding paramedical services superseded the legacy insurance plan's reasonable and customary limitations.

Consequently, the reasonable and customary limits did not apply to claims for massage services, and the grievance was allowed.

The Employer brought a motion for an order compelling a witness to attend a rescheduled arbitration hearing.

The witness had been duly served with a summons and conduct money but failed to join the video conference on the initial hearing date, later claiming illness and forgetfulness.

The Association did not oppose the motion.

The Arbitrator granted the order pursuant to the powers incorporated from the Labour Relations Act, 1995, directing the witness to attend the next scheduled hearing date and warning of potential consequences for further non-compliance.

The parties agreed to a consent order requiring the exchange of particulars and documents.

The arbitrator issued a procedural order setting out the timetable and requirements for the employer and the union to provide written particulars of their allegations of fact and copies of all documents on which they intend to rely.

In an interim decision regarding a grievance over a Targeted Direct Assignment (TDA) process, the arbitrator determined whether the Association could introduce the complainant's prior job descriptions as evidence.

The parties had agreed to an expedited protocol requiring the Association to provide a chart demonstrating how the complainant met the entry-level qualifications.

The arbitrator ruled that it was not appropriate for the Association to include prior job descriptions that were not before the decision-makers when the complainant was initially found not to have met the entry-level qualifications.

The union sought damages for non-tangible losses, including mental distress and injury to dignity, following a previous award that found the employer failed to accommodate the grievor's ergonomic requirements.

The union proposed a range of $15,000 to $35,000, while the employer proposed $10,000 to $20,000.

The arbitrator awarded $15,000, noting that the employer's breach occurred over distinct sub-periods and that the grievor's distress was not exclusively caused by the employer's actions.

Additionally, the arbitrator ruled that the employer was entitled to deduct a prior overpayment from the settlement monies paid to the grievor under a Memorandum of Agreement, rejecting the union's technical and equitable arguments against the deduction.

The union grieved the insurer's decision to terminate the complainant's long-term income protection (LTIP) benefits.

The insurer had determined that the complainant was no longer totally disabled and could return to work.

The arbitrator reviewed extensive medical documentation, including independent medical examinations and reports from treating physicians, which diagnosed the complainant with chronic pain syndrome.

The arbitrator found the complainant to be a credible historian whose subjective reporting of debilitating symptoms was supported by her treating physicians.

The arbitrator concluded that the complainant was unable to perform the essential duties of any occupation for which she was reasonably fitted, and therefore met the definition of total disability for the 'any occupation' period.

The parties entered into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) to resolve issues pertaining to the quantification of damages for salary and credit adjustments.

The MOA required the employer to pay the amounts owing within 60 days.

The employer failed to make the payments within the specified timeframe.

The arbitrator directed the employer to pay the amounts owing within 90 days of the award, along with the agreed daily interest that commenced on the 61st day following the signing of the MOA.

The union requested that the complainant be permitted to testify via videoconference based on existing medical documentation, or alternatively, that the hearing be adjourned to allow for further medical evidence to be filed.

The arbitrator denied the request for videoconference testimony on the current record but granted a brief adjournment to provide the complainant one final opportunity to produce medical evidence supporting her claimed inability to testify in person.

The Association filed a grievance alleging a breach of the Respectful Workplace Policy, workplace discrimination and harassment, and a dispute over the complainant's salary during temporary assignments.

The Arbitrator ordered the Employer to pay the complainant $6,500 in general damages for the harassment and discrimination allegations.

The Arbitrator also ordered the complainant to repay approximately $5,400 to $5,500 in disputed salary received during a temporary assignment, while finding the Employer was not entitled to repayment for a subsequent period.

The Association filed a grievance on behalf of the Complainant alleging the Employer breached the collective agreement by reducing her starting salary from $68,000 to $63,482 one day after she signed her initial fixed-term contract, and failed to provide 16 weeks' notice of termination under the Employment Standards Act.

The Arbitrator dismissed the ESA notice claim, finding the Employer provided the required notice at the time of hiring.

The Arbitrator found the Employer breached the collective agreement by unilaterally reducing the salary without fresh consideration.

Although the grievance was filed outside the 30-day time limit, the Arbitrator held the breach was a continuing violation, entitling the Complainant to damages for the 30-day period prior to the filing of the grievance.

The parties were engaged in a process to address remedial questions following an earlier arbitration award.

The Association requested the production of certain employer records to facilitate this process.

The Arbitrator directed the Employer to provide an accounting of all monies paid and credits used or accrued by the complainant for the period between August 14, 2010, and March 18, 2014.

The Association brought a motion to bifurcate the arbitration proceeding to first determine whether the employer's cancellation of a job competition was a bad faith exercise of management rights.

The employer opposed the motion, arguing it would result in duplication of evidence and delay.

The Arbitrator granted the motion, finding that determining the cancellation issue first could dispose of the entire grievance and avoid the need for lengthy testimony regarding the individual complainants' qualifications.

The Arbitrator noted that evidence from the first phase could be applied to the second phase to minimize duplication.

In a dispute over a 10-day suspension, the Grievance Settlement Board previously ordered the employer to produce the contents of a WDHP file, subject to certain redactions.

Following further submissions, the Board directed the employer to provide unredacted copies of the documents, with the condition that the Association restrict access to the formerly redacted portions to its counsel and one designated Association representative.

The Employer brought a motion to consolidate three disputes involving two different complainants (Chiba and Argyropoulos) to be heard together.

The disputes involved allegations of workplace harassment and subsequent discipline.

The Association opposed the motion, arguing the adjudicator lacked jurisdiction to consolidate matters already assigned to and commenced before a different Vice-Chair.

The Grievance Settlement Board denied the motion, finding it lacked jurisdiction to take matters from another seized adjudicator without the parties' consent.

Furthermore, even if jurisdiction existed, the Board would decline to consolidate the matters due to limited factual overlap and potential prejudice to the complainant.

The Association requested the production of a pre-screening score sheet for all 37 applicants in a job posting grievance.

The grievor was one of five candidates selected for an interview based on the pre-screening scores.

The Employer resisted production, arguing the document was not arguably relevant because the final selection decision was based on interview performance and written work, not the pre-screening scores.

The Grievance Settlement Board denied the Association's request, finding that since the grievor was granted an interview and the pre-screening score was not relied upon by the selection committee in its ultimate decision, the score sheet had no arguable relevance to the grievance.

The applicant filed an application alleging age discrimination in employment.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer due to an ongoing union classification grievance.

The applicant and the union opposed deferral, noting the grievance did not allege Code breaches and the Code allegations post-dated the classification dispute.

The respondent argued for deferral to avoid contradictory results.

The Tribunal found no overlap between the facts and issues in the grievance and the application, and ordered that the application not be deferred.

The parties sought an interpretation of Minutes of Settlement signed in February 2014.

The arbitrator determined that the amount referred to in Paragraph 1(b) of the settlement is a retiring allowance and therefore not subject to Employment Insurance (EI) or Canada Pension Plan (CPP) deductions.

The employer was ordered to pay the grievor the outstanding sum of $1,961.03.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the union's grievance as untimely, as it was filed six working days beyond the 30-day limit in the collective agreement.

The union acknowledged the delay but requested an extension of time.

Applying the Becker Milk factors, the Vice-Chair noted the employer conceded it would suffer no prejudice and that the nature of the grievance favoured an extension.

Although the reasons for the delay were not compelling, the short length of the delay and the lack of prejudice justified extending the time limit.

The employer's motion was dismissed.

The Member, a teacher, faced allegations of professional misconduct for posting inappropriate and discriminatory comments on a blog and his website regarding abortion and homosexuality, and for making homophobic remarks to a student and his principal.

The Member pled no contest to the allegations.

The Discipline Committee found the Member guilty of professional misconduct.

Accepting a joint submission on penalty, the Committee ordered a reprimand, a one-month suspension of his Certificate of Qualification, completion of a course on maintaining appropriate boundaries, and publication of the decision including the Member's name.