Michael MacLellan

The union filed a grievance alleging the grievor was bullied and harassed by a co-worker, and that the employer failed to properly investigate the complaints and punitively transferred the grievor.

The arbitrator found that the interactions between the grievor and her co-worker constituted a mutual personality conflict rather than workplace harassment.

The arbitrator also found the transfer was for legitimate operational reasons.

However, the employer violated the Occupational Health and Safety Act and the collective agreement by failing to investigate one of the complaints and failing to provide the grievor with written results of the investigations into the other complaints.

The grievor was awarded $4,500 in general damages for these procedural failures.

The Union grieved the Employer's assignment of Seasonal Warehouse Workers to backfill shortages created by absent Operations Clerks at the LCBO's Durham Warehouse.

The parties agreed to bifurcate liability and remedy, submitting sample issues for determination.

The Arbitrator found that assigning a Seasonal Warehouse Worker to perform Clerk work on an overtime basis without first offering it to permanent full-time Clerks violated the Overtime Equalization Agreement.

However, assigning a Seasonal Warehouse Worker to backfill a Clerk shift on straight time, even if it subsequently resulted in overtime for that worker or another Seasonal Warehouse Worker within their own classification, did not violate the collective agreement, as management retained the right to assign available regular hours efficiently.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued a case management order scheduling hearing dates and setting deadlines for the exchange of documents, responses to proposed litigation scenarios, and the finalization of an agreed statement of facts between the union and the employer.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to strike particulars relating to mental distress allegedly suffered by two grievors following discipline.

The employer argued that the medical opinions provided did not support the particulars and challenged the competency of the medical professionals.

The arbitrator dismissed the motion, finding that there was a prima facie case for unjust discipline which could form the basis of a claim for mental distress, and that the strength of the medical evidence and causal connection should be tested through the litigation process rather than on a preliminary motion.

The employer brought a motion to strike several elements of the union's particulars relating to grievances filed by two employees who were disciplined and transferred following an investigation into a toxic workplace culture.

The employer argued that the claims for reputational damage, mental health issues, and lost promotional opportunities were too remote or represented an unwarranted expansion of the original grievances.

The arbitrator granted the motion in part, striking the claims for reputational damage and lost promotional opportunities, but allowing the mental health claims to proceed subject to the union providing more fulsome particulars regarding causation.

The Employer requested an order for the production of particulars and documents from the Union regarding the grievor's alleged disabilities (diabetes and hearing impairment), need for accommodation including an assistive animal, and alleged damage to hearing aids.

The Arbitrator granted the request, ordering the Union to provide the specified particulars by April 20, 2018, and the requested medical and training records as soon as possible.

The union and the employer brought preliminary motions regarding particulars in a grievance arbitration.

The union sought an order for the employer to provide full particulars, while the employer sought to strike out portions of the union's 92-page particulars.

On the agreement of the parties, the Vice-Chair ordered that no further particulars were necessary, the union's particulars would stand as the grievor's examination-in-chief, and set a schedule for the exchange of arguably relevant documents.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability against his employer and union, claiming his rate of pay was decreased when accommodated in a permanent position.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal dismissed the application against the union entirely, finding no evidence that the creation of a new job classification was discriminatory.

The Tribunal also dismissed the allegations against the employer regarding the rate of pay and licence compensation.

However, the Tribunal permitted the applicant to provide further particulars regarding a newly raised allegation that he could perform his pre-injury duties with minor modifications.

The respondents brought multiple requests for orders, including requests to dismiss the application for no reasonable prospect of success, no prima facie case, abuse of process, and delay.

The respondents also sought to remove the individual respondent, defer the application pending a Ministry of Labour investigation, and obtain early production of documents.

The Tribunal denied all of the respondents' requests, finding that the application disclosed a prima facie case of discrimination based on pregnancy and disability, the allegations were not clearly out of time, and the individual respondent's conduct was a central issue.

The request for early document production was denied as premature.

The union filed grievances alleging improper scheduling of a permanent part-time employee.

The parties sought a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of the collective agreement regarding the allocation of additional hours.

The arbitrator held that the employer is not required to offer hours outside a permanent part-time employee's recorded availability before scheduling a casual employee, nor is the employer required to modify a full shift to offer a portion of it to a permanent part-time employee.