Kevin Dorgan

The union filed grievances on behalf of upwards of one hundred grievors alleging improper balancing of hours.

To streamline the process, the Vice-Chair issued an interim procedural order requiring the union to obtain full particulars from each grievor by a specified deadline, failing which the grievance would be deemed withdrawn.

The order also set deadlines for providing the particulars to the employer and scheduled further hearings to address specific issues.

The Union brought a motion to consolidate two grievances filed on behalf of the grievor.

The first grievance challenged a 20-day disciplinary suspension for allegedly throwing a wet floor sign at an inmate, while the second alleged a privacy breach after the employer publicized the discipline on a shared computer drive.

The Union argued both actions were motivated by anti-union animus.

The Grievance Settlement Board granted the motion to consolidate, finding that the grievances shared common questions of law and fact, arose out of the same occurrence, and that hearing them together would be a more efficient use of resources without causing prejudice to the employer.

The union grieved the employer's decision to post a fixed-term Ambulance Communications Officer position with a mandatory requirement for advanced level oral French, while not requiring applicants to have already completed Entry to Practice training.

The grievors did not possess the required French language skills.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievances, finding that the employer's designation of the position as bilingual was a reasonable exercise of management rights for a legitimate business purpose in a designated French-speaking area.

Because the grievors lacked the mandatory language qualification, the employer's decision regarding the training requirement was immaterial to their lack of success in the competition.

During a group grievance arbitration alleging the employer failed to make reasonable provisions for the health and safety of Environmental Officers, the union sought disclosure of a Crown brief from a related prosecution under the Nutrient Management Act.

The Crown consented to disclosure but required an order from the Board due to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Board ordered the production of the Crown brief subject to conditions restricting its use to the arbitration and requiring the redaction of irrelevant third-party personal information.

In a grievance arbitration concerning a job competition for a historical blacksmith position, the parties agreed to a Memorandum of Settlement directing a reassessment of the candidates by a jointly chosen evaluator.

The employer subsequently raised an issue of actual bias or apprehension of bias against the evaluator, arguing that his evaluation report contained demeaning and inappropriate comments about the successful candidate.

The Grievance Settlement Board found no actual bias or apprehension of bias, concluding that the evaluator's strong opinions were based on the testing results rather than preconceived animus.

However, the Board directed that the inappropriate comments be expunged from the record.

At the outset of a hearing regarding a grievance over a displacement opportunity following a layoff, the Union raised a preliminary issue requesting that the Employer be ordered to proceed first with its evidence.

The Union argued this would be more efficient and fair given the Employer's discretion in denying the redeployment.

The Employer objected, arguing the Union must first establish a prima facie case that the grievor was qualified.

The Board denied the Union's request, finding no reason to depart from the usual practice of requiring the Union to present its evidence first in non-disciplinary cases.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging employment discrimination based on disability.

The applicant requested that the application be deferred because she had an outstanding grievance based on the same facts and issues, and the respondent agreed.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that deferral was appropriate to avoid concurrent proceedings and the possibility of inconsistent decisions.

The appellant challenged the dismissal of an action advancing further employment-related claims against her former employer notwithstanding an earlier settlement and extensive prior litigation.

The Court of Appeal held that the action was properly dismissed on multiple independent grounds, including limitation period expiry, failure to disclose a reasonable cause of action, abuse of process, and exclusive labour-relations jurisdiction.

The court further held that the proceeding was an attempt to re-litigate issues that were or ought to have been raised in earlier proceedings and applied issue estoppel under Danyluk.

The appeal was dismissed with modest costs to the respondent.

The union filed a policy grievance alleging that the employer violated the collective agreement by ceasing its practice of providing formal disclosure when increasing the complement of existing positions.

The union argued that an increase in complement constituted the creation of a "new position" under article 1.4, triggering disclosure obligations.

The employer maintained that the disclosure obligation only applied when a completely new position was created.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that reading the provision in context and applying canons of interpretation supported the employer's position.

The arbitrator noted that the union's interpretation would lead to absurd results and an unreasonable administrative burden.

The union referred two grievances to arbitration nearly two years after the employer denied them at Stage Two.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the referral was outside the 15-day time limit in the collective agreement.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that, pursuant to section 48(16) of the Labour Relations Act and established jurisprudence, it has no jurisdiction to extend the time limits for referring a grievance to arbitration.

The employer's motion was granted and the grievance was dismissed.

The complainant received a ten-day suspension and filed a notice of proposal to file a complaint well outside the 14-day time limit prescribed by section 8 of Ontario Regulation 378/07.

The employer raised a preliminary objection regarding the Board's jurisdiction.

The Public Service Grievance Board held that the time limits in the Regulation are mandatory and that notice within the time limit is an essential precondition for the Board to assume jurisdiction.

As there is no statutory authority to relieve against these mandatory time limits, the complaint was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the grievance had been settled during mediation.

The union had offered to settle the grievance in exchange for a 10-month fixed-term contract, which the employer accepted.

However, the grievor subsequently learned his current employer would not grant him a leave of absence to accept the contract, and the union refused to sign the minutes of settlement.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that a binding settlement was reached at the moment the employer accepted the union's offer, as there were no substantive issues left to negotiate.

The grievance was declared no longer arbitrable and dismissed.

The union filed a grievance alleging the grievor, a social worker, was terminated without just cause following allegations of sexual harassment of a placement student.

The arbitrator found that while the grievor made poor decisions, his conduct did not amount to sexual harassment warranting termination.

However, concluding that the employment relationship was irreparably harmed, the arbitrator declined to reinstate the grievor and remitted the matter to the parties to craft an appropriate remedy.

The union filed a grievance alleging that the employer violated the collective agreement by temporarily assigning less senior employees to a vacant Senior Operations Technician position instead of the grievor.

The parties agreed to a true mediation-arbitration process and requested a bottom-line decision without reasons.

The arbitrator found no violation of the collective agreement and dismissed the grievance.

The Association alleged the Employer breached the collective agreement by failing to directly assign the surplus complainant to either of two positions.

In a preliminary motion regarding the order of proceeding and document production, the Association sought full production of documents relevant to the entry level qualifications for the positions, including documents related to a subsequent job competition.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the Employer to produce all documents in its possession, custody, or power that are arguably relevant to determining the entry level qualifications for each position, including documents created after the dispute arose.

The Union brought an application requesting that the Employer be ordered to proceed first in a mediation-arbitration concerning a lay-off grievance and subsequent bumping grievances.

The Union alleged bad faith, claiming the grievor was targeted.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the application, holding that established jurisprudence requires the party making allegations of bad faith to proceed first so the responding party can adequately respond.

During the hearing of grievances regarding the employer's alleged failure to accommodate the grievor's disability, an evidentiary dispute arose.

The Union sought to put two documents to a management witness during cross-examination and to call reply evidence based on his responses.

The Employer objected to the admission of the documents and the proposed reply evidence.

The Vice-Chair exercised his discretion to permit the Union to put the documents to the witness and to call the reply evidence, noting that relevance and weight would be determined later.

The parties reached an agreement on February 23, 2012, to resolve the grievance.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued a consent order making the agreement an order of the Board.

The Union alleged the Employer breached the Human Rights Code by failing to accommodate the grievor's family status during a mandatory Staff Learning Day.

The grievor had an ongoing accommodation for her work hours, but the Employer temporarily changed the hours for the event.

At the close of the Union's case, the Employer brought a motion for non-suit.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the grievor failed to clearly communicate her need for accommodation to her manager, relying instead on general emails sent in her capacity as a union steward.

As clear communication of the request is an essential element of a failure to accommodate claim, the Union failed to make out a prima facie case.

The grievance was dismissed.

Two sets of grievances were referred to the Grievance Settlement Board.

The first set involved claims for unpaid meal expenses for the grievors' spouses who attended an award ceremony at the employer's invitation.

The Board allowed these grievances, finding the employer's initial invitation reasonably implied such expenses would be covered, and ordered the employer to pay the outstanding amounts.

The second set challenged the employer's decision to assign holiday road-side enforcement work to TEO2s rather than TEO3s.

The Board dismissed these grievances, concluding the assignment was entirely within the employer's purview and made without improper motive.