Laura R. Johnson

The employer brought a motion to dismiss several grievances, alleging the grievor abused the arbitration process through hearing delays, cancellations, and failing to attend a scheduled hearing on time.

The Grievance Settlement Board reviewed the history of the proceedings and found that the delays and cancellations were due to various administrative issues, illness, and changes in counsel, rather than the grievor's conduct.

Regarding the missed hearing, an agreed statement of facts confirmed the grievor did not receive notice of the hearing until after it had commenced.

The motion to dismiss for abuse of process was denied.

The Union grieved the Employer's assignment of Seasonal Warehouse Workers to backfill shortages created by absent Operations Clerks at the LCBO's Durham Warehouse.

The parties agreed to bifurcate liability and remedy, submitting sample issues for determination.

The Arbitrator found that assigning a Seasonal Warehouse Worker to perform Clerk work on an overtime basis without first offering it to permanent full-time Clerks violated the Overtime Equalization Agreement.

However, assigning a Seasonal Warehouse Worker to backfill a Clerk shift on straight time, even if it subsequently resulted in overtime for that worker or another Seasonal Warehouse Worker within their own classification, did not violate the collective agreement, as management retained the right to assign available regular hours efficiently.

During an adjournment of a grievance arbitration, the parties met with the arbitrator to discuss ongoing requests for the exchange of production.

The employer agreed to provide the union with the grievor's WDHP, disability accommodation, and corporate medical files by a specified date.

The union agreed to disclose the grievor's medical file for a specific period, subject to strict confidentiality conditions restricting its use and dissemination.

The arbitrator issued an order reflecting these agreements and scheduled the next hearing date.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued a case management order scheduling hearing dates and setting deadlines for the exchange of documents, responses to proposed litigation scenarios, and the finalization of an agreed statement of facts between the union and the employer.

The Ontario Public Service Employees Union (OPSEU) and two individuals applied for a declaration that the Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology Labour Dispute Resolution Act, 2017, which ended a five-week college strike, infringed their freedom of association rights under section 2(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and sought damages.

The Crown in Right of Ontario and the College Employer Council argued the Act did not infringe the Charter or was justified under section 1.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the Act did not substantially interfere with meaningful collective bargaining, as the parties were at an impasse.

Alternatively, the court held that even if there was an infringement, it was justified under section 1, given the pressing and substantial objective of resuming college instruction, the rational connection of the legislation, its minimal impairment (by substituting a neutral arbitration process), and its proportionality.

The Member, a Registered Practical Nurse, faced allegations of professional misconduct for engaging in a personal and romantic relationship with a vulnerable mental health patient at a secure facility.

The Member admitted to the allegations, acknowledging that she breached professional boundaries, spent excessive time with the patient, and exchanged personal information and text messages.

The Discipline Committee found the Member committed professional misconduct, including emotional abuse and disgraceful, dishonourable, and unprofessional conduct.

Accepting a joint submission on penalty, the Committee ordered an oral reprimand, a 10-month suspension of the Member's certificate of registration, and various terms, conditions, and limitations, including employer notification and a prohibition on independent practice in the community for 18 months.

The Employer brought a preliminary objection to strike portions of the Union's particulars, arguing they impermissibly expanded the scope of the grievance.

The original grievance alleged a failure to accommodate medical restrictions regarding a shift change.

The Union's particulars added allegations that the grievor was repeatedly assigned duties beyond her medical restrictions.

The Arbitrator dismissed the Employer's motion, finding that the assigned duties allegations flowed naturally from the broad wording of the grievance, which alleged a general failure to accommodate and disregard of medical documentation.

The Employer raised two preliminary objections to a grievance alleging a failure to accommodate the grievor on the basis of family status.

First, the Employer argued the grievance was barred by a prior Minutes of Settlement.

The Arbitrator dismissed this objection, finding the settlement release was explicitly limited to claims arising up to the date it was signed, whereas the current grievance concerned subsequent accommodation requests.

Second, the Employer argued the Union's particulars regarding denied compassionate care leave improperly expanded the grievance.

The Arbitrator dismissed this objection as well, finding the leave denials were cited as examples of the ongoing failure to accommodate and flowed directly from the core allegations in the grievance.

The grievor, a Corrections Officer, was issued a 15-day suspension for improperly wearing his PPE and intentionally blocking a CCTV camera with a wet floor sign during a COVID-19 outbreak, which prevented contact tracing.

The union grieved the discipline, arguing it was excessive, inconsistent with past practice, and motivated by anti-union animus.

The Arbitrator found no evidence of condonation or anti-union animus and upheld the seriousness of the camera obstruction.

However, the Arbitrator found the PPE breach warranted only a letter of counsel and reduced the overall penalty to a 10-day suspension.

The Union filed six grievances following a provincial government announcement of its intention to increase the number of LCBO agency outlets, alleging a failure to consult.

The Employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the grievances as premature.

The Arbitrator granted the motion, finding that the mere announcement of an intention to open agency outlets did not constitute a breach of the collective agreement, and any alleged future breach was speculative rather than anticipatory.

The grievances were dismissed.

The union brought a motion arguing that the grievor's disciplinary termination was void ab initio because the employer violated his right to union representation under article 30.1 of the collective agreement during a meeting on March 12, 2022.

The grievor alleged that a Staff Sergeant confronted him with photographs of falsified COVID-19 test results and obtained an admission of guilt without offering union representation.

The employer denied that such a meeting occurred, asserting the Staff Sergeant only requested an Occurrence Report.

The Arbitrator preferred the employer's evidence, finding inconsistencies in the grievor's account and concluding that the alleged meeting did not take place.

The motion was dismissed, and the grievance was scheduled to proceed on its merits.

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.

The employer requested an amendment to a previous procedural order regarding the location from which the grievor was required to attend virtual hearings.

The grievor had transferred to a new work location and could no longer access the previous location.

The union opposed the amendment, citing the grievor's desire to keep past issues out of her new workplace.

The arbitrator granted the employer's request and amended the order to require the grievor to attend future virtual hearings from a designated private space at her new work location.

The Union filed a grievance alleging the Employer failed to meet timelines for providing information required under Letter of Understanding Appendix COR14, resulting in a backlog.

The parties requested a consent award.

The Arbitrator issued the consent award, in which the Employer acknowledged its failure to meet deadlines and agreed to take concrete steps to address the backlog, including providing regular updates and reports to the Union.

The Union filed a grievance alleging the Employer failed to accommodate the Grievor's permanent medical restrictions by not offering him a temporary or permanent Rehabilitation Officer position.

The Employer brought preliminary motions arguing the accommodation claim did not disclose a prima facie breach of the collective agreement or the Human Rights Code, and that the job posting claim was untimely.

The Arbitrator granted the Employer's motions, finding that the Grievor had already been reasonably accommodated in a temporary control module position, and that the grievance regarding the May 2018 job posting was filed out of time without compelling reasons to extend the time limits.

During the examination-in-chief of the grievor in a workplace harassment and discrimination arbitration, the grievor testified about three incidents not included in the union's statement of particulars.

The employer moved to strike this evidence.

The union argued the incidents were relevant to establishing the manager's animus toward the grievor.

The arbitrator dismissed the employer's motion, ruling that the union should be afforded the opportunity to adduce further evidence on these matters, with the employer given latitude to cross-examine.

The parties made submissions regarding the process for a timely and efficient hearing of seven grievances filed by the grievor.

The Arbitrator issued a procedural order setting out a schedule for the exchange of written requests for particulars, production of documents, and notification of preliminary objections.

The Employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss three individual grievances concerning the calculation of severance pay for casual employees.

The Employer argued that the Union was estopped from pursuing these grievances because it had previously withdrawn a policy grievance on the identical issue after receiving the Employer's particulars and productions, and had subsequently withdrawn bargaining proposals seeking the same benefit.

The Arbitrator agreed, finding that the withdrawal of the policy grievance in these circumstances, without stating it was 'without prejudice', constituted a representation that the Union accepted the Employer's interpretation of the collective agreement.

The motion was granted and the grievances were dismissed.

The Employer requested an order directing the Union to provide additional particulars regarding a grievance alleging that a manager yelled at and made non-consensual physical contact with the grievor.

The Arbitrator denied the request, finding that the particulars already provided by the Union were sufficiently detailed and contextual to enable the Employer to understand the allegations and prepare its defence.

The Arbitrator noted that the finer points of the allegations properly belong in the hearing process.

The Union filed grievances challenging the termination of the grievor's employment.

The employer produced an investigation report to Union counsel subject to confidentiality undertakings.

The grievor sought to share the report with family members supporting him in the grievance process.

The employer did not object, provided the family members accepted the appropriate undertakings.

The arbitrator issued an interim order directing that the named family members could review the investigation report subject to strict conditions of confidentiality and non-reproduction, limiting its use solely to the hearing of the matter.