138 total
Arbitrator issues consent case management schedule and sets continuation dates for arbitration.
The parties met to attempt to mediate a settlement of the grievance.
They agreed to continuation dates in April 2026 and a case management schedule, including the use of 'will say' statements instead of viva voce evidence in chief.
The arbitrator issued a decision recording the agreed-upon timetable for the exchange of documents, particulars, and will say statements.
Employer's motion to strike union's particulars granted based on prior settlement, three-year rule, and abuse of process.
The Employer brought a preliminary motion to strike certain particulars filed by the Union in relation to five grievances alleging harassment and discrimination based on disability.
The Employer argued the particulars should be struck based on a prior settlement, the 'three-year rule', and res judicata/abuse of process due to a prior arbitration decision by Arbitrator Leighton.
The Arbitrator granted the motion, striking paragraph 7 as it was barred by a prior settlement release.
The Arbitrator also struck the remaining disputed particulars, finding they either violated the three-year rule or constituted an abuse of process because they related to matters that were or ought to have been raised in the prior arbitration.
Grievance regarding 2014 reclassification and red-circled salaries dismissed due to nine-year delay in filing.
The union filed a group grievance in 2023 alleging that the employer violated the collective agreement when it reclassified the grievors and red-circled their salaries in 2014.
The employer brought a motion to dismiss the grievance for delay.
The arbitrator found that the nine-year delay was substantial and that prejudice to the employer could be presumed.
The arbitrator declined to extend the time limits and dismissed the grievance.
Grievance regarding breach of settlement resolved with adjustments to CTO bank and vacation credits.
The Union filed a grievance alleging the Employer breached the collective agreement and a prior settlement agreement.
The parties attended arbitration to resolve the dispute over the grievor's compensating time off (CTO) and vacation credits.
The arbitrator ordered that the grievor's 2025 CTO bank be reduced by 48 hours, but held that the Employer was not entitled to recover the over usage of 11.75 vacation credits from 2023.
Employer directed to produce arguably relevant materials to the Union ahead of merits hearing.
The Union brought a grievance regarding a competition for an excluded position.
The Employer indicated it would argue the Board lacks jurisdiction, but would do so during the merits hearing rather than as a preliminary objection.
The Arbitrator directed the Employer to produce all arguably relevant materials to the Union by specified dates and scheduled further hearing dates for the merits of the case.
Hearing adjourned with directions after grievor failed to attend without explanation.
The grievor failed to attend the scheduled arbitration hearing without advance notice or explanation.
The arbitrator adjourned the hearing and directed the grievor to provide an explanation and supporting documentation for her non-attendance prior to the next scheduled hearing date, noting that failure to do so could result in the employer seeking dismissal of the grievances for abandonment.
GSB has jurisdiction to award damages for workplace harassment falling within WSIA's employment function bar.
The employer brought a motion arguing that the Grievance Settlement Board lacked jurisdiction to award compensatory damages to the grievor for workplace harassment and a poisoned work environment, asserting that the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) had exclusive jurisdiction.
The arbitrator dismissed the motion, finding that the employer's actions and inactions fell within the 'employment function bar' under s. 13(5) of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997.
Because the WSIB had already denied benefits for the ongoing harassment on this basis, the claims were not compensable under the WSIA, leaving the GSB with jurisdiction to award damages for breaches of the collective agreement and the implied duty of care.
Employer ordered to produce arguably relevant documents regarding commuting directives for Canine Conservation Officers.
The Union sought an order for the production of documents related to directives issued in March and April 2023 regarding commuting for Canine Conservation Officers.
The Employer argued that some of the requests were too broad and constituted a fishing expedition, and suggested a temporal limit for others.
The Arbitrator ordered the Employer to produce all arguably relevant materials, finding that the narrow focus of the issue and the short timeline made 'arguably relevant' the appropriate limit, while narrowing one request to specific inquiries to avoid a fishing expedition.
Motion to limit remedies dismissed; claims for accommodation failures during return to work are not precluded by WSIA.
The employer brought a motion to limit the remedies available to the grievor, arguing that her claims for lost earnings during an unsuccessful return to work process were essentially claims for compensation for a workplace injury, which fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act (WSIA).
The union argued the claims were for breaches of the collective agreement, the Human Rights Code, and the Occupational Health and Safety Act, specifically regarding the duty to accommodate and provide a safe workplace.
The arbitrator dismissed the employer's motion, finding that the claims invoked rights separate and severable from those under the WSIA and were therefore within the Board's jurisdiction to proceed.
Consent order issued setting continuation dates and timelines for remote work grievances.
The Association filed complaints alleging the employer contravened the collective agreement by limiting requests for alternative work arrangements to work remotely at home.
The parties agreed upon a consent order setting out continuation dates and timelines for process, including particulars and production.
The Board issued the consent order and remained seized with the complaints.
Employer breached collective agreement by applying blanket return-to-office policy to deny remote work request.
The grievor requested an alternative work arrangement (AWA) to work remotely five days a week.
The Employer denied the request, relying on Secretary of Cabinet memoranda that mandated a return to the office for a minimum of three days a week.
The Association grieved the denial, arguing the Employer failed to consider the request in good faith and the operational viability of the AWA, as required by Article 47.1 of the Collective Agreement.
The Grievance Settlement Board allowed the grievance, finding that the Employer applied a blanket policy, fettered its managerial discretion, and actively avoided disclosing the true reasons for the denial.
The matter was remitted to the manager for reconsideration in accordance with the Collective Agreement.
Motion for production of documents partially granted; temporal scope limited to 2019 onwards.
The Union brought a motion for the production of documents relating to the Grievor's disability and accommodation, dating back to 2015.
The underlying grievances challenged the Employer's refusal to allow the Grievor to retract her resignation, alleging the Employer failed to properly inquire into her mental health.
The Arbitrator applied the West Park factors and determined that documents from 2019 onwards were arguably relevant, as that was when the accommodation began.
Requests for documents predating 2019 were denied as being too remote and overly broad.
Employer ordered to produce return-to-work documents and training materials subject to confidentiality restrictions.
The Union sought a production order for documents related to the grievor's return to work and training materials for the YSO position.
The Arbitrator ordered the Employer to produce notes from return-to-work meetings, correspondence regarding return-to-work efforts, and applicable training materials.
The production was made subject to strict confidentiality and non-disclosure restrictions, particularly regarding sensitive medical records.
Grievance arbitration regarding correctional facility security cameras adjourned sine die on consent to process new grievance.
The parties appeared before the Grievance Settlement Board regarding a dispute over the installation and use of security cameras in correctional facility control modules, following a prior 2021 decision.
The Union sought to have cameras moved or their fields of vision altered, and indicated its intention to file a fresh grievance on the issue.
On consent of the parties, the Arbitrator adjourned the proceedings sine die to allow for the processing and consolidation of the new grievance.
Grievance dismissed as no individual claims for compensation were identified following the original award.
The parties reconvened to address monetary compensation issues arising from a previous arbitration award that upheld three grievances, including one from the Sudbury Jail.
Despite attempts over three years to identify individual claims for compensation from the Sudbury Jail, no such claims were found.
To ensure finality, the arbitrator dismissed the Sudbury Jail grievance.
Consent order issued for production of investigation report subject to strict confidentiality conditions.
The Union sought production of an Investigation Report and related materials.
On consent of the parties, the Arbitrator ordered the Employer to produce the documents subject to strict confidentiality conditions, including restrictions on copying, distribution, and a requirement to destroy the documents at the conclusion of the proceedings.
Grievance granted in part; employer liable for discrimination creating a poisoned workplace for Deaf employee.
The grievor, a Deaf employee, alleged that the employer discriminated against and harassed him, creating a poisoned workplace in breach of the Human Rights Code and the collective agreement.
The union argued that the employer's actions were driven by Audism and that the grievor's duties were systematically eroded.
The arbitrator issued a bottom-line decision to facilitate settlement discussions, finding the employer liable for discrimination and harassment regarding several specific incidents that created a poisoned workplace.
However, the arbitrator dismissed the allegations of Audism and the claim that the grievor's job duties were eroded because of his deafness.
Consent order issued setting timelines for production and filing of an incident chart.
Following unsuccessful mediation, the parties agreed on timelines for production pursuant to a prior Board order.
The Grievance Settlement Board issued a consent order setting out the deadlines for the employer's production, the union's requests for further production, dispute resolution, and the filing of a chart of incidents.
Grievances dismissed due to grievor's failure to attend hearings and comply with arbitrator's directions.
The grievor filed three grievances alleging harassment and discrimination resulting in involuntary resignation.
After multiple hearing days, the proceedings were delayed for over three years while the grievor pursued unsuccessful duty of fair representation complaints at the OLRB.
When hearings resumed, the grievor failed to attend and subsequently refused to provide reasons for his absence or commit to participating in future hearings.
The employer brought a motion to dismiss the grievances.
The arbitrator granted the motion, finding the grievor's conduct disrespectful to the process and the union, and dismissed the grievances.
Grievance dismissed due to complainant's unexplained failure to attend hearings and comply with Board orders.
The employer brought a motion to dismiss the dispute after the complainant failed to attend a scheduled hearing and failed to comply with a subsequent Board order requiring an explanation for her non-attendance.
The complainant alleged a conflict of interest with her union representation but provided no particulars.
The union requested an adjournment sine die, suggesting underlying issues might be affecting her ability to participate.
The arbitrator granted the employer's motion and dismissed the dispute, finding that disagreement with the choice of union representative is not a reasonable explanation for non-attendance and noting the absence of any medical or other evidence to explain her non-compliance.
