Len Hatzis

The union brought a motion seeking additional remedial orders to enforce a previous Grievance Settlement Board decision that declared court reporters performing transcription work were bargaining unit employees.

The union alleged the employer failed to comply with the prior orders and sought orders compelling individual managers to comply or appear before the Board to explain the non-compliance.

The employer objected on jurisdictional grounds.

The Board dismissed the motion, holding that it lacks statutory authority to enforce its own orders.

Under section 48(19) of the Labour Relations Act, enforcement of arbitration decisions is exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Superior Court of Justice, and the Board's retention of jurisdiction for implementation disputes did not empower it to enforce its final and binding orders.

The union filed a grievance after the employer directed an occupational health and safety inspector, under threat of discipline, to attend and testify at an examination for discovery in a civil action against the Crown.

The union argued that section 63(3) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act makes inspectors non-compellable witnesses.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that while the inspector was being compelled, the privilege against testifying does not reside with the inspector personally.

Reading the Act as a whole, the Board concluded that the employer (the Crown) has the discretion to waive the privilege and direct the inspector to testify in order to defend the integrity of the inspection process.

In the remedial stage of a grievance concerning whether transcript preparation is bargaining unit work, the Employer brought a motion to compel the production of a grievor's income tax returns and supporting documents from 2003 to 2009.

The Union opposed the motion, arguing the documents were not arguably relevant and citing privacy interests under the Income Tax Act.

The Grievance Settlement Board granted the motion, finding that the tax documents were arguably relevant to the Employer's argument that transcript income and other earnings should be offset against claimed losses.

The Board ordered production subject to the redaction of personal information unrelated to income and expenses.

The union filed grievances claiming that two newly created positions fell within its bargaining unit.

The employer brought a motion to defer the grievances to the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB), arguing that the matter was a jurisdictional dispute involving another union (AMAPCEO) and that an application under section 99 of the Labour Relations Act had already been filed.

The Grievance Settlement Board granted the motion to defer, finding that the OLRB was the more appropriate forum to resolve jurisdictional disputes and avoid parallel proceedings.

The Employer moved to dismiss the grievances, arguing the Union failed to comply with a Board order to provide particulars regarding retrospective remedial claims for court reporters.

The Union acknowledged the particulars were incomplete but argued it made best efforts and faced difficulties gathering historical data for hundreds of employees.

The Board denied the motion to dismiss, finding no abuse of process or deliberate flouting of the order.

The Board noted the grievances had already been found to have merit and the matter was at the remedial stage, making dismissal an extraordinary and inappropriate remedy in these circumstances.

The Union was granted an additional six months to complete the particulars.

The Union requested an extension of time to provide particulars ordered in a previous decision, citing the difficulty of gathering information for over 400 employees.

The Employer opposed the request.

The Grievance Settlement Board granted the extension, finding that the Union provided valid reasons and noting that the original timeline for compliance was relatively brief.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the Union to provide full particulars related to its claims for retrospective relief regarding transcript production within 45 days.

The particulars must include the identity of each individual, dates and times of work performed, and how the Collective Agreement applies to each claim.

The Board also directed the Union to advise the Employer if the Union Dues document does not identify employees' classifications, with a teleconference to be convened for any disclosure disputes.

The Union filed nine grievances alleging the Employer violated the collective agreement by actions taken against the grievors regarding an alleged pattern of absences, and challenged the Employer's 'Best Practices' document.

The Employer raised a preliminary objection to the scope of the issues, arguing the document was not a formal policy and could only be challenged as applied to the individual grievors.

The Union acknowledged it would only challenge the aspects of the document applied to the grievors.

The Vice-Chair ruled that this concession obviated the need for a broader ruling on the preliminary motion, and deferred the issue of the scope of remedial jurisdiction as premature.

The Employer raised a preliminary objection regarding the Grievance Settlement Board's jurisdiction to issue prospective remedies following a previous decision that found transcript preparation to be bargaining unit work.

The Union argued the issue was already decided in a prior ruling and that the Board had broad remedial authority to prevent the Employer from unilaterally implementing a new transcript production model.

The Board held that the prior ruling did not decide the jurisdictional issue.

Furthermore, the Board concluded it lacked jurisdiction to order prospective relief because the Employer's new proposed regulatory model raised new facts and issues not encompassed in the original grievances, and any challenge to it must be brought through a new grievance.

During a hearing on a motion to intervene, the employer requested permission to disseminate a memorandum and proceed with stakeholder consultation, arguing that the document's possession by a third-party coalition violated a previous Board order.

The union opposed the request.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the employer's request, clarifying that the earlier decision did not prevent the dissemination of the memorandum itself, but rather precluded the employer from unilaterally initiating the implementation process outlined within it.

The Board held that the consultation process constituted part of implementation and remained prohibited by the prior cease and desist order.

The Coalition of Concerned Court Reporters of Ontario sought leave to intervene in the remedial stage of an arbitration concerning the preparation and certification of transcripts by Court Reporters.

The Grievance Settlement Board denied the motion, finding that the Union is the exclusive representative of the Court Reporters and that no exceptional circumstances existed to justify granting third-party standing to a group of bargaining unit members who may disagree with the Union's position.

The Union sought an order preventing the Employer from unilaterally implementing changes to court reporting and transcript production while the Grievance Settlement Board remained seized with remedial issues from a prior decision.

The prior decision found that transcript preparation was bargaining unit work.

The Employer argued it had management rights to implement its plan and the Union could challenge it at the remedial hearing.

The Vice-Chair held that allowing unilateral implementation would circumvent the ongoing hearing process and undermine the Board's integrity.

The Employer was ordered to cease and desist implementation pending the resolution of the remedial issues.

The union grieved the employer's practice of paying flexible part-time employees at straight time for paid leave hours (vacation, statutory holidays, etc.) taken after the employee had accrued 110% of their minimum annual hours.

The union argued that under Appendix 32 of the collective agreement, these leave hours should be considered 'excess hours' and paid at the overtime rate.

The employer contended that only hours actually worked counted as overage hours for overtime purposes.

The Grievance Settlement Board allowed the grievances, finding that 'hours worked' in the parties' agreements was shorthand that included paid leave hours, and directed the employer to pay the overtime premium for the leave hours in question.

The union filed a grievance alleging that the employer violated the collective agreement when a flexible part-time employee incurred an hours deficit for a week after taking a sick day.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the employer's scheduling obligation under the collective agreement is to make reasonable efforts to ensure employees are scheduled to work their minimum annual hours over the course of a calendar year, not on a weekly basis.

As there was no evidence that the employer failed to meet this annual obligation, the grievance was dismissed.

The Grievance Settlement Board heard several grievances concerning the interpretation of Appendix 32 to the collective agreement, which established the 'flexible part-time' (FPT) category for court workers.

The union raised several questions of general application regarding work assignments, reporting pay, and call-back pay for FPT employees.

The Board found that the employer is not required to schedule FPT staff to a particular courthouse, that assigning different set-up times to different classifications does not violate the agreement, and that FPT employees are not entitled to a minimum number of after-lunch work hours merely by returning from lunch.

The Board also held that reassigning an employee to another courthouse during their scheduled shift does not constitute a 'call back'.

All illustrative grievances were dismissed.

In a grievance arbitration involving multiple files, the Grievance Settlement Board dismissed several grievances.

The 'Slat et al.' grievances concerning vacation credits were dismissed because the union conceded it had no dispute with the employer, and the Board lacks jurisdiction over disputes solely between employees and the union.

The 'Sign In Sheet' grievances were also dismissed insofar as they claimed the employer was obliged to provide employees with photocopies of their daily sign-in sheets, as no provision in the collective agreement required the employer to do so.

The union filed a grievance alleging the employer failed to maintain a past practice of providing free parking when employees were relocated to a new building.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the union was improperly expanding the scope of the grievance by adding health and safety claims and allegations of differential treatment, and that the failure to provide free parking did not breach the collective agreement.

The arbitrator upheld the preliminary objection, finding the new claims were beyond the scope of the original grievance and that the collective agreement contained no provision requiring the employer to provide free parking.

The grievance was dismissed.

The grievor alleged that the employer breached minutes of settlement by returning him to his home position after a six-month developmental opportunity as a Labour Relations Specialist.

The grievor argued that he should not have been returned to his home position without proof of poor performance.

The Public Service Grievance Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the clear language of the settlement agreement only entitled the grievor to a six-month developmental opportunity, after which employees normally return to their home positions.

The employer had fulfilled its obligations under the agreement.

The grievor, a Bee Inspector, filed two grievances challenging the Employer's rulings that his roles with beekeeping associations constituted conflicts of interest.

The Employer raised a preliminary objection that the Grievance Settlement Board lacked jurisdiction because no discipline was imposed and no specific provision of the collective agreement was violated.

The Board upheld the preliminary objection, finding that the letters directing the grievor to choose between his employment and association roles were not disciplinary in nature, and therefore did not violate the discipline and dismissal provisions of the collective agreement.

The grievances were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued a procedural order regarding 73 scheduled grievances concerning Appendix 32 to the collective agreement.

To facilitate the adjudication of common or generic issues, the Board ordered the parties to exchange full written particulars of the material facts on which they rely, along with copies of relevant documents, according to a specified timetable.