Jane Letton

The Employer brought a motion arguing that some of the Union's particulars did not make out a prima facie case.

The grievances related to the negotiation of a new Compressed Work Week Agreement and alleged anti-union animus, health and safety violations, and reprisals.

The Arbitrator assumed the facts in the particulars to be true and concluded they were sufficient to substantiate the alleged violations.

The Employer's motion was dismissed without detailed reasons, in accordance with the Board's practice.

The Union grieved that the Grievor's Manager engaged in a course of conduct including micromanaging, bullying, harassment, and exclusion, resulting in discrimination on the basis of disability.

The Grievor had a workplace accommodation requiring her to work at an alternative location, physically isolated from her colleagues.

The Arbitrator found that the Manager applied a different standard to the Grievor based on her accommodation, subjected her to adverse treatment, and failed to include her in workplace events.

The Employer was found to have violated Article 3 of the Collective Agreement and was ordered to pay $5,000 in general damages for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

The Union filed several grievances regarding working conditions at the Oshawa Central Ambulance Communication Centre.

During the intervening period, staffing changes occurred, including the hiring of additional staff.

The arbitrator determined that due to these material changes, there was no labour relations purpose to hearing the grievances of the representative grievor.

The grievances were dismissed without a decision on their merits.

The union sought to expand its grievances regarding salary progression for fixed term employees to include claims about how salary progression resumed after a freeze ended.

The employer objected to the Board's jurisdiction, arguing it was an undue expansion of the original grievances.

The arbitrator upheld the employer's objection, finding that the post-freeze issue was not raised in the original grievances or during the hearing, and could not be considered a remedial claim flowing from the Board's earlier decisions.

The union's new particulars were struck.

The grievor sought reconsideration of a January 6, 2021 decision, claiming additional money was owed by the employer, including unpaid WSIB amounts, interest on delayed payments, and excessive tax deductions.

The arbitrator reviewed the comprehensive payments document provided by the employer and found no errors or miscalculations to support the grievor's claims.

The arbitrator dismissed the first four claims but allowed the employer an opportunity to respond to the grievor's sixth claim regarding alleged double CPP and EI deductions.

The College of Nurses of Ontario brought disciplinary proceedings against a registered nurse for professional misconduct.

The nurse admitted to failing to maintain the boundaries of the therapeutic nurse-patient relationship by engaging in a personal relationship with a patient, which included communicating outside the therapeutic relationship, socializing in person, and accepting gifts and loans.

The Discipline Committee accepted an Agreed Statement of Facts and a Joint Submission on Order, finding the nurse committed professional misconduct.

The nurse was reprimanded, suspended for four months, and subjected to terms and conditions on her certificate of registration.

The member was previously found to have committed professional misconduct involving time theft and practice issues.

At the penalty hearing, the College sought a 12-month suspension and a mandatory nursing course, while the member argued for a lesser penalty.

The Discipline Committee ordered a 4-month suspension, an oral reprimand, and terms including an 18-month employer notification and meetings with a regulatory expert.

The Committee found the College's proposed penalty excessive, noting the member did not falsify documents or cause direct patient harm, and had no prior performance issues.

The Grievance Settlement Board determined the compensation owed to correctional officers for the employer's breach of a compressed work week agreement that required maintaining a minimum staffing level.

The Board calculated the shortfall in hours over a 155-week period using representative weeks, determining a 2-hour weekly shortfall.

Compensation was awarded based on the average hourly rate, with half the hours paid at the overtime rate, subject to a 15% discount for occasions when the overtime list was exhausted.

The union filed a grievance alleging the employer contravened a Compressed Work Week Agreement by falling below the minimum staffing level of 158 classified correctional officer positions on statutory holidays.

The union argued that a separate pilot project agreement should increase the base positions to 165, but the arbitrator rejected this based on the clear wording of the agreement.

The arbitrator found a total shortfall of 35 hours for 2014 and 2015.

Compensation was awarded at double the second-highest regular hourly rate, totaling $2,221.10.

The union filed a policy grievance regarding whether the term 'regular salary' in Article 41.3 of the collective agreement includes across-the-board salary increases and special adjustments from an interest arbitration award.

The employer argued that the salary should be fixed at the time the employee goes on WSIB benefits.

The arbitrator held that the ordinary meaning of 'regular salary' includes negotiated wage adjustments, as there was no express language fixing the value indefinitely, unlike other provisions in the agreement.

The grievance was allowed.

The employer brought a motion to dismiss the union's claim that it acted in bad faith in meeting its obligations under Minutes of Settlement regarding the grievor's return to work and placement in a case worker position.

The union alleged the employer failed to properly integrate the grievor and set him up for failure.

The arbitrator found that the union's particulars, even if accepted as true, did not support a prima facie case of bad faith, as they did not show deliberate actions designed to undermine the grievor's success.

The employer's motion to dismiss the bad faith claim was granted.

The union filed a complaint alleging that the employer failed to comply with a memorandum of settlement by not providing the grievor with agreed-upon training courses and meaningful job shadowing opportunities.

The arbitrator found that the employer did not prevent the grievor from taking the courses and that the job shadowing provided met the obligations under the settlement.

The complaint was dismissed.

The Member, a registered nurse, faced disciplinary proceedings for placing a colleague in a chokehold and for numerous medication administration and documentation errors.

The Member admitted to the allegations, which included failing to document medication wastage, administering narcotics without a witness signature, and failing to document patient assessments.

The Discipline Committee accepted an Agreed Statement of Facts and a Joint Submission on Order, finding the Member committed professional misconduct.

The Member was reprimanded, suspended for four months, and subjected to terms, conditions, and limitations on her certificate of registration, including meetings with a regulatory expert and employer notification.

The employer brought a motion arguing that the union was estopped from asserting its rights under article 31A.2.3 of the collective agreement, which governed when fixed-term employees in corrections progress through the salary grid.

The employer had a long-standing practice since 1992 of applying merit increases on the first day of the month following the completion of the required hours, rather than immediately upon completion.

The arbitrator found that the employer's policy was clear and consistently applied, and that the union had constructive knowledge of the practice.

The arbitrator concluded that all elements of estoppel were established, including detrimental reliance in the form of a lost opportunity to bargain, and held that the union was estopped from asserting its strict rights under the collective agreement.

In a grievance arbitration before the Grievance Settlement Board, the arbitrator issued a procedural order directing the employer to provide particulars of its position regarding the top-up of WSIB benefits.

The employer was also ordered to deliver any arguably relevant documents by a specified date to facilitate the next hearing.

The Union filed grievances on behalf of the grievor regarding the termination of her employment.

In a procedural order to facilitate the production process, the Arbitrator directed the Employer to disclose the investigation report and all arguably relevant documents related to the termination.

The grievor, a correctional officer, was terminated following a severe assault on an inmate during his shift.

The employer alleged the grievor failed to properly perform his duties, including reading a book, using a cell phone in a secure area, failing to follow lockup procedures, and leaving his shift early.

The arbitrator found just cause for discipline regarding the cell phone, reading, and leaving early.

However, the arbitrator found the employer's written lockup and window covering policies were not consistently enforced and could not fully support discipline.

Considering mitigating factors, including the grievor's daughter's accident the previous day and his clean disciplinary record, the arbitrator concluded termination was excessive and substituted a one-year suspension.

The union filed a grievance claiming the grievor was short paid for the 65-day waiting period prior to receiving WSIB payments.

The employer abandoned its counterclaim for alleged double payment.

The parties exchanged documents revealing the grievor was short paid $3,652.74 for the 65-day period in 2013, and $258.51 for sick leave absences in 2014.

The arbitrator upheld the grievance and ordered the employer to pay the total amount of $3,911.25 plus interest.

The grievor challenged the outcome of a job competition for a Senior Food Services Officer (Cook 3) position.

The employer relied exclusively on interview scores to select the successful candidate, failing to consider the grievor's years of actual experience performing the duties of the posted position.

The arbitrator found that this exclusive reliance on interview scores, without considering demonstrated ability, violated the collective agreement's requirement to give primary consideration to qualifications and ability.

The arbitrator ordered the competition to be re-run, noting that the interview format also disadvantaged the grievor as a non-native English speaker.

The Union undertook to provide a list of remaining grievances to the Employer by June 7, 2021.

The Arbitrator noted that if the Union fails to do so, submissions will be heard regarding whether all the grievances should be dismissed.