Robert Healey

The Grievor, a correctional officer, was terminated for allegedly using excessive force (delivering no less than 10 closed fist strikes) against an inmate.

The incident occurred in a Direct Supervision Unit after the inmate became non-compliant and physically assaultive.

The arbitrator found that the Grievor's actions were reasonable defensive strikes given the inmate's size, history of violence against staff, and the fact that the inmate remained a threat even when crouched.

The grievance was allowed, and the Grievor was reinstated and made whole.

The Union sought a further order for production of documents related to grievances alleging breaches of the Employer's duty to accommodate the Grievor's medical restrictions.

The Employer did not object to the order.

The Arbitrator directed the Employer to produce the Grievor's entire personnel file and all documents pertaining to the injury and accommodation by November 21, 2025.

The Union filed a grievance on behalf of an employee.

At the hearing, counsel advised the arbitrator of a related grievance scheduled for arbitration before a different arbitrator.

The arbitrator directed that the present grievance be listed for hearing on the same date with the related grievance, and noted that counsel for the Employer would contact Union counsel to discuss consolidation and the hearing process.

The Union filed a grievance on behalf of several individuals.

Two of the grievors failed to attend the scheduled video hearing despite being aware of the time and date.

The Arbitrator ordered the absent grievors to provide reasons for their non-attendance to Union counsel by a specified date.

If no explanation is provided, the grievance will be deemed dismissed as it pertains to them.

If reasons are provided, the Employer will review them and advise whether it is satisfied or seeks dismissal.

The Union filed a grievance alleging the Employer violated the collective agreement by failing to consult the Union's Occupational Stress Injuries Sub-committee before implementing a redesigned training program for correctional officer recruits.

The Arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that the collective agreement provisions regarding training and occupational stress injuries applied only to bargaining unit employees, not to pre-employment recruits.

The Arbitrator also rejected the Union's argument that the Employer was estopped from implementing the program without Union input, as there was no clear and unequivocal representation by the Employer that the Sub-committee's mandate extended to non-employees.

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.

The Union brought grievances on behalf of the grievor.

During the hearing, the Employer objected to the Union's cross-examination of a witness regarding the medical impact of the grievor's alleged conduct on the witness's mental health.

The Union also requested the disclosure of the witness's medical records and further production of emails.

The Arbitrator ruled that the medical impact on the witness's mental health was not relevant to the issues in dispute, precluding the line of questioning and denying the request for medical records.

The Arbitrator also declined to order the production of the requested emails, finding them not arguably relevant.

The union filed two grievances: a competition grievance alleging the grievor was unfairly denied a position, and a discrimination grievance alleging the employer discriminated against her due to her union activity.

The employer brought preliminary motions to strike certain particulars in both grievances, arguing they improperly expanded the scope of the original grievances, and to dismiss the discrimination grievance for failing to establish a prima facie case.

The Arbitrator dismissed the motions, finding that allegations of unfairness were inherent to the competition grievance and that the particulars provided for the discrimination grievance were capable of supporting the alleged violations.

In an interim decision regarding a grievance challenging the termination of the grievor's employment for allegedly filing false health benefit claims, the employer sought production of medical records and electronic notes/calendar entries.

The union opposed the request for electronic notes, arguing it was late and irrelevant.

The arbitrator found that the requested materials were arguably relevant to the issues in dispute, including the grievor's mitigation efforts, medical condition, and whether the claimed health services were provided.

The arbitrator ordered the production of the requested medical records and electronic notes.

The union filed a grievance alleging the employer failed to accommodate the grievor.

Following unsuccessful mediation, the parties agreed to a schedule for the delivery of particulars, pre-hearing production of documents including medical records, and preliminary motions.

The arbitrator issued a case management decision formalizing the agreed-upon timeline and scheduling future hearing dates.

The union grieved the grievor's discharge.

At the hearing, the employer was unable to provide full production of video recordings it intended to rely on due to technical difficulties in transferring the files.

The union objected to the employer's failure to produce the videos and brought a motion.

The arbitrator found that the employer had not addressed the technical issue with sufficient seriousness, but granted the employer an extension until September 30, 2024, to produce the videos and other requested documents.

If the employer fails to produce the materials, a conference call will be convened to determine next steps, including whether the employer will be permitted to rely on the events recorded in the videos.

In a discharge grievance involving a correctional officer terminated for failing to conduct adequate security patrols, the Union brought a motion to preclude the Employer from leading evidence about an inmate's suicide that occurred during the grievor's shift.

The Union argued the evidence was irrelevant and prejudicial since the Employer did not allege the grievor's conduct contributed to the death.

The Arbitrator dismissed the motion, finding the evidence relevant to provide context for the investigation, the penalty imposed, and the grievor's activities, though the Employer was prohibited from leading evidence to show the grievor caused the death without formally amending the grounds for discharge.

The parties convened for mediation which proved unsuccessful.

The arbitrator addressed case management issues, ruling that evidence regarding cause for discipline and appropriate penalty (including damages in lieu of reinstatement) would be heard together, while the calculation of any damages would be bifurcated.

The arbitrator also granted the Union's request to adjourn a scheduled hearing date because the grievor had recently commenced new employment and faced potential consequences for further absences during her probationary period.

The union sought an adjournment of a scheduled hearing date due to the grievor's medical issue, which the employer consented to.

On the reconvened date, the grievor failed to attend and could not be reached by the union.

The arbitrator ordered the grievor to provide an explanation for her absence prior to the next scheduled date and directed that any future medical absences must be substantiated by a medical certificate, warning that further unexplained absences could result in the grievance being dismissed.

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.

In a grievance arbitration concerning the termination of a correctional officer for excessive use of force against an inmate, the union sought to introduce the disciplinary record of another employee to argue inconsistent discipline.

The employer objected to the admission of the documents.

The arbitrator upheld the objection, finding that the material facts of the two incidents did not substantially conform.

The arbitrator held that admitting the evidence would unnecessarily prolong the hearing and require the employer to respond to an old, unrelated incident, concluding the documents were not arguably relevant.

The Union brought a motion to grant the grievance challenging the grievor's termination, arguing the Employer failed to produce Parts D and E of the Local Investigative Report.

The Union alleged a pattern of bad faith in the Employer's failure to provide timely disclosure.

The Arbitrator found no evidence that the Employer deliberately withheld the documents or acted in bad faith, noting it was likely the documents were never completed.

The Arbitrator concluded the absence of the documents did not compromise the Union's ability to make full answer and defence, given the extensive documentary evidence already produced and the opportunity to cross-examine the decision-maker.

The motion was dismissed.

In a grievance arbitration regarding the employer's alleged failure to accommodate the grievor, the employer sought production of the grievor's complete medical record.

The arbitrator balanced the employer's need to present its case against the grievor's privacy interests.

The union was ordered to produce all medical records substantiating the medical restrictions at the time accommodation was sought, with the employer retaining the right to seek further production if necessary.

The Employer brought a motion challenging the timeliness of a grievance filed by the Union regarding a 20-day suspension of a correctional officer.

The grievance was filed more than 16 months after the deadline.

The Union requested an extension of time under section 48(16) of the Labour Relations Act.

The arbitrator applied the Schiff factors and found that the delay was extreme, the grievor was solely responsible for abandoning the initial grievance, and the Employer would suffer prejudice due to faded memories.

The arbitrator declined to exercise discretion to extend the time limits and dismissed the grievance.

The Union brought a motion to hear three grievances together, while the Employer brought motions to dismiss one grievance for untimely referral and to strike certain particulars.

The grievances related to the Employer's alleged failure to accommodate the grievor's disability, denial of short-term sick pay, and subsequent disciplinary suspensions.

The Arbitrator granted the Union's motion to hear the grievances together, finding a sufficient factual and legal nexus.

The Arbitrator dismissed the Employer's motion regarding the untimely referral, exercising discretion to extend the time limit due to the grievor's innocent mistake and lack of prejudice.

The Arbitrator granted the Employer's motion to strike particulars relating to previously settled grievances, but refused to strike particulars regarding accommodation efforts, finding them relevant to establishing a pattern of conduct.