Erika Montisano

The Union filed grievances on behalf of two Correctional Officers with medical restrictions, alleging the Employer breached its duty to accommodate by bypassing them for overtime opportunities on the night shift.

The Union argued the Employer should have accommodated the grievors by assigning them on an over-complement basis or by bundling duties to create viable overtime shifts.

The Arbitrator dismissed the grievances, finding that the Employer properly applied the Provincial Overtime Protocol, which included a mechanism for switching assignments to accommodate restrictions.

The Arbitrator held that the duty to accommodate does not require an employer to assign unproductive work or to create above-complement positions, particularly at premium overtime rates.

The parties consented to an order amending a previous decision to require the employer to produce an investigation report and related materials to the union.

The arbitrator ordered the production subject to strict confidentiality conditions, including restrictions on copying, forwarding, and use of the documents solely for the purpose of the arbitration.

The Union sought production of an Investigation Report and related materials in a grievance arbitration.

On consent of the parties, the Arbitrator ordered the Employer to produce the requested documents to the Union.

The production was made subject to strict confidentiality conditions, including restrictions on copying, distribution, and use of the documents solely for the purpose of the arbitration.

The parties consented to an order directing the Employer to produce an Investigation Report, appendices, and non-privileged materials to the Union.

The arbitrator ordered the production subject to strict confidentiality conditions, including restrictions on copying, forwarding, and sharing the documents, and requirements to delete electronic copies at the conclusion of the hearing.

The union grieved the employer's determination that duties performed by a Regional Duty Officer after the end of his scheduled shifts during the active fire season were 'fire related' and thus compensable as overtime rather than compensating time off.

The union argued that unless there was an active fire requiring suppression, the duties were not fire related.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that the concept of fire fighting and related duties encompasses a broader scope than active suppression, including readiness to go into action and monitoring, and that the duties performed directly stemmed from fire activity.

The Union sought an extension of time to provide supplementary particulars and an adjournment of the hearing, citing the grievor's reported illness.

The Employer opposed the request and sought an order restricting the Union from providing further particulars, noting the grievor had attended work in person on the scheduled hearing date.

The Arbitrator denied both motions, ordering that the prior order for particulars stands, but directed the grievor to provide a detailed medical certificate explaining her inability to assist the Union and attend the virtual hearing while being able to attend work.

The Employer requested an order directing the Union to deliver particulars concerning the allegations in a 2019 grievance.

The parties had previously agreed during mediation that the Union would provide particulars by July 1, 2022, but they were not provided.

The Arbitrator ordered the Union to provide comprehensive particulars by September 16, 2022, failing which the grievance may be dismissed upon motion by the Employer.

The employer raised preliminary objections to a grievance regarding whether certain duties performed by the grievor accrued compensating time off or overtime.

The employer argued the grievance was untimely and improperly filed as an individual grievance rather than a union grievance.

The arbitrator dismissed both motions, finding that the grievance was properly filed as an individual grievance because the grievor sought a remedy specific to his own timesheets.

The arbitrator also extended the time limits under section 48.16 of the Labour Relations Act, finding the delay was minimal and the grievance could be viewed as a continuing grievance.

The complainant, a Sergeant at the Vanier Centre for Women, filed a grievance seeking a retroactive wage increase equal to that received by bargaining unit correctional officers.

The employer raised preliminary objections regarding timeliness and the absence of a prima facie case.

The Public Service Grievance Board found that the complaint was filed beyond the mandatory 14-day time limit and before the expiry of the dispute resolution period.

The Board also noted that it lacked jurisdiction to set wage rates or create terms of employment.

The complaint was dismissed.

The Complainant, a Coordinator of Maintenance Services at a youth justice facility, filed a grievance alleging he was unfairly denied temporary COVID-19 pandemic pay that was provided to bargaining unit staff and certain other managers.

The Employer brought a preliminary objection that the complaint did not make out a prima facie case because the Complainant could not point to an existing term or condition of employment that was breached.

The Public Service Grievance Board agreed, finding that the pandemic pay explicitly excluded management and the Institutional COVID-19 Response Pay was limited to Youth Services Managers.

As the Board lacks jurisdiction to create new terms of employment, the complaint was dismissed.

The Complainant alleged the Employer failed to appoint him to a full-time position despite verbal assurances following a successful job competition.

The Employer raised preliminary objections regarding jurisdiction, arguing no prima facie case, no discrimination, and untimeliness.

The Board found the Complainant established a prima facie case based on equitable estoppel regarding the verbal assurances, making it a term or condition of employment.

The discrimination claim was dismissed for lack of nexus.

The complaint was deemed timely.

The matter was referred for a hearing on the merits.

The grievor failed to attend a scheduled virtual grievance arbitration hearing despite receiving notice and being contacted by union counsel.

The employer noted the grievor was at work and had access to a computer.

The hearing was adjourned as the union could not proceed without the grievor.

The arbitrator ordered the grievor to provide reasons for his failure to attend within 28 days, failing which the grievance may be dismissed.

The Employer brought a preliminary motion to strike paragraphs 22-24 of the Union's particulars, arguing that allegations regarding difficulties obtaining vacation time and expectations to work weekends and statutory holidays improperly expanded the scope of the grievance.

The Arbitrator dismissed the motion, finding that while the paragraphs could not support an independent violation of the vacation or hours of work provisions, they were arguably relevant to the grievor's core allegation that changes to her work resulted in overwork and stress.