10 total
Request to re-activate deferred human rights application denied pending ongoing grievance arbitration.
The applicant requested to re-activate her human rights application, which had been deferred pending the conclusion of ongoing grievance arbitration.
The Tribunal denied the request, noting that the grievance proceedings were ongoing and scheduled for arbitration shortly.
The application remains deferred until the conclusion of the grievance proceedings.
Grievance dismissed; collective agreement provision for a $400 lump sum payment interpreted as a gross amount subject to statutory deductions.
The Union filed a policy grievance alleging the Employer violated the collective agreement by paying eligible employees a $400 lump sum clothing allowance less statutory deductions, rather than a net payment of $400.
The Union argued the language was clear or, alternatively, latently ambiguous, relying on extrinsic evidence of negotiating history.
The arbitrator held that the clear language of the collective agreement required a gross payment of $400, noting that the Employer's statutory obligation to remit tax did not alter its compliance with the provision.
The grievance was dismissed.
Grievor ordered assigned as a permanent full-time Customer Service Representative following mediation/arbitration.
The parties agreed to a mediation/arbitration process to resolve multiple grievances filed by the union on behalf of the grievor.
The Vice-Chair issued a decision without reasons, directing the employer to assign the grievor as a permanent full-time Customer Service Representative to a store in the London geographical area.
The order fully and finally disposed of all the noted grievances.
Production of union training manuals and EI information denied at preliminary stage of termination grievance.
In a grievance regarding the termination of an employee, the Union brought a preliminary motion alleging the Employer breached the collective agreement by failing to provide advance notice of a meeting and the right to union representation.
The Employer sought production of the Union's training manuals and information regarding the grievor's receipt of Employment Insurance.
The Vice-Chair ordered the exchange of notes and particulars but declined to order the production of training manuals or EI information at this stage, finding them irrelevant or premature.
Grievance dismissed; employer established just cause for terminating probationary employee due to poor performance.
The grievor, a probationary Customer Service Representative, was terminated after approximately five months of employment due to poor work performance in cashiering and computer techniques.
The union grieved the termination, arguing that the employer lacked just cause and violated the collective agreement by failing to provide union representation at a meeting where performance concerns were discussed.
The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the meeting was not disciplinary in nature and therefore did not trigger union representation rights.
The Board further held that the employer had met its onus of establishing just cause by demonstrating that the grievor was provided with adequate training, was made aware of her deficiencies, and was reasonably assessed as unsuitable for permanent employment.
Grievance dismissed; discharge upheld for premeditated theft despite claims of gambling addiction.
The grievor, a senior part-time employee at the LCBO, was discharged for cashing four cheques totalling $7,000 without authorization and knowing he had insufficient funds.
The grievor claimed his actions were driven by a gambling addiction and threats from a loan shark.
The Grievance Settlement Board found that the employer had just cause for discharge, as the thefts were premeditated and constituted a serious breach of trust in a retail environment.
The Board declined to mitigate the penalty, finding the grievor lacked credibility, failed to demonstrate genuine remorse, and had not taken meaningful steps toward rehabilitation for his gambling addiction.
Discharge declared void ab initio because employer failed to provide advance notice of disciplinary meeting purpose.
The grievor was discharged for allegedly stealing a gift flask from a case of liquor.
The union raised a preliminary objection, arguing that the employer violated Article 26.3 of the collective agreement by failing to inform the grievor in advance of the purpose of an investigatory meeting that could lead to discipline.
The Grievance Settlement Board found that the right to advance notice under Article 26.3 is a substantive right, and the employer's failure to provide it prejudiced the grievor.
The Board declared the discharge void ab initio and ordered the grievor reinstated with compensation from the date the union raised the objection.
Bereavement leave grievance allowed; 'immediate family' definition includes great-grandparents.
The grievor sought bereavement leave following the death of his great-grandmother.
The employer denied the leave, arguing that 'great-grandparent' was not explicitly listed in the collective agreement's definition of 'immediate family'.
The arbitrator found that the collective agreement used inclusive rather than exhaustive language ('shall include').
Applying a broad and purposive approach, the arbitrator concluded that a great-grandparent falls within the scope of 'immediate family', noting the inclusion of various in-law relationships and the direct line of consanguinity.
The grievance was allowed.
Arbitrator assumes jurisdiction over net payment grievances and establishes June 30, 2001 timeliness cutoff.
The parties entered into a memorandum of settlement granting the arbitrator jurisdiction to deal with all grievances relating to the net payment after deductions issues from the year 2000 negotiations.
The employer raised a timeliness argument, asserting that the collective agreement created a ten-day time limit.
The arbitrator found that all grievances filed on or before June 30, 2001, were timely and would proceed, while those filed after that date were untimely and dismissed.
Vice-Chair ruled he was not seized of an unfair labour practice complaint and referred it for scheduling.
The union applied for certification and filed an unfair labour practice complaint.
Following a representation vote, the union withdrew its status challenges, which would have resulted in the dismissal of the certification application but for the unfair labour practice complaint.
The complaint hearing was deferred because the employer had not received notice.
The union requested that a new panel hear the complaint as soon as possible, while the employer argued the current panel was seized.
The Vice-Chair ruled he was not seized of the complaint as he had not commenced hearing it, and referred the matter to the Registrar to be scheduled for hearing before a new panel at the earliest opportunity.
