Lisa Amin

The grievor, a probation and parole officer, alleged that the employer breached the collective agreement.

The parties referred the grievance to mediation/arbitration under Article 22.16 of the collective agreement and requested a decision without written reasons.

The arbitrator denied the grievance.

The Union grieved the Employer's decision to cancel a job competition for a temporary position in Barrie after the grievor had applied.

The Employer cancelled the posting because the incumbent entered into a job trade with an employee in Newmarket, effectively moving the vacancy to Newmarket.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that the Employer had sound and practical reasons to cancel the posting, as the job trade was a legitimate exercise of employee rights under the collective agreement that eliminated the vacancy in Barrie.

The parties sought direction on who should be given notice of the arbitration proceedings.

The grievance concerned a job posting that was discontinued after two employees arranged a job swap.

The grievor's claim was limited to travel costs, as the posted job period had expired.

The Vice-Chair held that there was no requirement to give notice to the other applicants or the employees engaged in the job swap, as there was no incumbent with an interest to protect and no possible displacement of other employees.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued a procedural direction ordering the union to provide full particulars of its claim and produce all documents it intends to rely upon by March 10, 2010.

The employer was ordered to provide copies of all documents it intends to rely upon within six weeks of receiving the union's particulars and documents.

The union filed grievances alleging that the employer filled an Intake Worker position without holding a competition, in violation of the collective agreement.

The parties agreed to proceed via mediation/arbitration and agreed on the facts that the position should have been posted.

The arbitrator allowed the grievances and ordered the employer to post a vacancy for an Intake Worker restricted to certain employees, with back pay awarded if one of the grievors is successful.

The union filed grievances on behalf of several employees who were unsuccessful in a job competition for Intake Worker positions.

The employer acknowledged that some written tests were incorrectly marked and rescored them.

Following a review of the amended scores, the parties agreed that four grievors should have been awarded permanent positions.

The arbitrator ordered the employer to place those four grievors in the positions with full back pay, and dismissed the remaining three grievances.

The applicant filed a human rights application against multiple respondents, including government ministries, the Ontario Human Rights Commission, the Ontario Labour Relations Board, the Ombudsman, his union, and his MPP, alleging discrimination and a conspiracy to cover up previous discrimination.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to determine if the application could proceed.

The Tribunal dismissed the application against several respondents under section 53(8) of the Human Rights Code because the applicant had previously filed complaints about the same subject matter with the Commission.

The Tribunal dismissed the remaining allegations against the Attorney General, the Commission, and the MPP because the mere failure to assist the applicant did not disclose an arguable case of discrimination under the Code.