Chris Bryden

Five grievors, employed as youth service officers, applied for and accepted verbal offers for correctional supervisor positions.

The Employer subsequently rescinded the offers upon discovering the grievors lacked foundational training for adult correctional officers.

The Arbitrator found the accepted offers were binding on the Employer.

The grievances were allowed, and the Employer was ordered to review the grievors' training records, provide necessary foundational training, and offer them the next available corresponding vacancies.

The Union filed grievances seeking compensation for missed meal breaks at the Toronto South Detention Centre.

The parties resolved the issue of compensation for meal breaks missed while on escort duties, but disputed whether the remedy should be retroactive beyond thirty days prior to the grievance filing.

The Arbitrator applied the Board's thirty-day rule, finding no exceptional circumstances to extend the remedy further back.

On the second issue, the Arbitrator found that employees who miss a meal break within the institution are entitled to overtime pay for the thirty minutes worked, pursuant to the collective agreement, regardless of the one hour of straight time already paid by the Employer.

The College of Nurses of Ontario brought disciplinary proceedings against a registered nurse for professional misconduct, alleging sexual abuse and failure to maintain professional boundaries with a patient.

The member admitted to exchanging inappropriate text messages, visiting the patient's home without a clinical purpose, assisting the patient with a shower, and making remarks of a sexual nature.

The Discipline Committee accepted an Agreed Statement of Facts and found that the member committed professional misconduct.

The Committee accepted a Joint Submission on Order, imposing a reprimand, a 5-month suspension, and terms, conditions, and limitations on the member's certificate of registration.

The Member, a Registered Nurse, faced allegations of professional misconduct for failing to maintain professional boundaries and sexually abusing multiple vulnerable mental health patients.

The Member admitted to engaging in personal and sexual relationships with several patients, including having sexual intercourse with three of them.

The Discipline Committee found that the Member committed professional misconduct, noting the conduct was disgraceful, dishonourable, and unprofessional.

The Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand, the immediate revocation of the Member's certificate of registration, and reimbursement of up to $5,000 per patient for therapy and counselling funds.

The Member, a registered nurse, admitted to committing professional misconduct by submitting false claims totaling $2,650 under her employer's benefit plan for orthopaedic products and services, receiving non-medical merchandise instead.

The Discipline Committee accepted an Agreed Statement of Facts and found the Member committed professional misconduct.

Accepting a Joint Submission on Order, the Committee ordered an oral reprimand, a three-month suspension of the Member's certificate of registration, and terms including meetings with a regulatory expert and employer notification.

The Member, a registered nurse, admitted to committing professional misconduct by submitting false claims totaling approximately $5,892.50 under her employer's benefit plan between 2013 and 2016.

The Discipline Committee accepted an Agreed Statement of Facts and found that the Member misappropriated property, falsified records, and engaged in dishonourable and unprofessional conduct.

The Committee accepted a Joint Submission on Order, imposing a reprimand, a 3-month suspension of the Member's certificate of registration, and conditions including meetings with a regulatory expert and employer notification.

The union grieved the handling of the grievor's application for enhanced benefits under the Transition Exit Initiative, alleging the grievor was bullied into accepting an exit date that was not mutually agreeable.

As a preliminary matter, the arbitrator was asked to determine whether the grievor and his manager had reached a pre-arranged, mutually agreeable exit date.

The arbitrator found that the manager had not agreed to the grievor's preferred exit date and that the grievor's belief to the contrary was mistaken.

The arbitrator concluded there was no pre-arranged agreement regarding the exit date and remitted the matter back to the parties.

The parties appeared before the Grievance Settlement Board to resolve remaining disputes regarding the implementation of Minutes of Settlement relating to vacation credits for seasonal employees.

The Arbitrator ordered the employer to provide compensation and correct vacation accrual for a list of undisputed employees.

For the disputed employees, the Arbitrator found they were not eligible for entitlement because they had either already been compensated, were no longer employed, failed to attain seasonal status, or suffered no historical impact to their vacation entitlement.

The Employer sought an order for particulars and the production of arguably relevant documents from the Union in relation to a labour grievance.

The Grievance Settlement Board granted the request, ordering the Union's counsel to provide the requested particulars and documents to the Employer's counsel by a specified date.

The applicant sought judicial review of two arbitration awards dealing with return to work grievances following a strike by academic staff.

The arbitration board had concluded that the collective agreement's workload provisions did not apply and developed its own principles to award additional compensation.

The Divisional Court found the board's decision unreasonable, as it ignored the language of the Return to Work Protocol and the collective agreement, which did not confer jurisdiction to create new compensation criteria.

The application for judicial review was granted, the awards were quashed, and the grievances were remitted to a different arbitration board.

The applicant, a union steward, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of ethnic origin and place of origin during a union election.

He claimed that a broken hyperlink to his biography in an email to members and insulting comments made by a union official at an all-candidates meeting were discriminatory.

The respondents requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was not treated differentially regarding the hyperlink, as another candidate experienced the same issue, and there was no evidence linking the events or comments to the applicant's ethnic or place of origin.

The application was dismissed.