Len Hatzis

During a grievance arbitration regarding workplace harassment and resulting stress and anxiety, the employer brought a motion for the production of the grievor's decoded OHIP summary for a nine-year period.

The union opposed the request, arguing it was premature and overbroad.

The Grievance Settlement Board granted the motion, finding that the grievor's pre-existing medical condition and causation were significant issues in dispute.

The Board imposed conditions on the disclosure to address privacy concerns, limiting review to employer counsel and one advisor, prohibiting copies, and restricting use to the defense of the grievance.

The employer raised a preliminary objection to the Board's jurisdiction to hear a grievance from management employees regarding changes to their benefit plan, specifically the reduction in orthopaedic shoes and the rolling of the Employment Insurance premium refund into benefits.

The Board dismissed the grievance, finding no prima facie case that a term or condition of employment had been violated.

The Board held that comparisons to bargaining unit benefits could not form the basis of a manager's grievance, and the grievors failed to establish a legal entitlement to the previous benefit levels or a mandatory consultation process under the Employment Insurance Act.

The applicant sought judicial review of two awards by the Crown Employees Grievance Settlement Board regarding the divestment of young offender facilities.

The Board found the applicant breached the collective agreement by failing to require new operators to recognize employees' seniority, and awarded a blanket monetary remedy to all affected employees based on years of service.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the standard of review was reasonableness and that the Board's collective remedy was appropriate and reasonable in the labour relations context, despite the applicant's argument that individual losses should have been assessed.

The parties met to commence hearings into two grievances.

At the outset, preliminary matters required procedural orders.

The Vice-Chair ordered that the two grievances be consolidated and heard together.

Furthermore, the Vice-Chair ordered a mutual exchange of full particulars regarding the alleged violations, responses, and essential facts to be proven at arbitration, with specific timelines for each party.

The Employer brought a preliminary motion to prohibit the Union from leading evidence related to events predating a June 2002 Memorandum of Settlement.

The Union sought to introduce this evidence to establish a pattern of discrimination against the grievor.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that the Union was precluded from presenting evidence about the facts and circumstances underlying the previously settled grievances, emphasizing the importance of preserving the sanctity of final settlements.

However, the Union was permitted to lead evidence about events occurring between the filing of the settled grievances and the current grievance, including evidence that the settlement itself was breached.

Four correctional officers filed grievances claiming travel time after the closure of L'Original Jail and their relocation to the Ottawa Carleton Detention Centre.

The employer objected that the grievances were untimely.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the claim arose from a March 2001 settlement and was not a continuing grievance.

The grievances were filed over three months late.

Applying the Becker Milk factors, the Board declined to exercise its discretion under section 48(16) of the Labour Relations Act to extend the time limits, finding the grievors were not diligent and deliberately delayed filing until they received mileage payments.

The grievances were dismissed.

The grievor, an air quality technician, was laid off and subsequently grieved the employer's refusal to recall him to fill a vacancy for an EO4 abatement officer.

The union argued that the grievor would have been qualified if he had been provided the same post-appointment training offered to other newly hired abatement officers, invoking an exception to the 'present ability' test.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that while new hires did receive some basic training, the union failed to demonstrate on a balance of probabilities that this limited training would have remedied the specific deficiencies in the grievor's qualifications.

The grievance was dismissed.

The Union filed a grievance alleging that overcrowding at the Hamilton-Wentworth Detention Centre violated the collective agreement.

At a preliminary hearing, the Union sought production of documents related to the facility's capacity and the Employer's efforts to reduce occupancy.

The Employer argued that the Union must first provide particulars of its allegations before disclosure is required.

The Grievance Settlement Board agreed with the Employer, holding that the Union must provide particulars regarding when, where, and how the alleged overcrowding violated the collective agreement before the Employer is obligated to produce the requested documents.

The employer brought a motion to strike out portions of the union's particulars alleging discrimination against the grievor, arguing that the allegations predated the grievor's 1996 reinstatement and were inherently prejudicial due to the passage of time.

The Grievance Settlement Board agreed, finding that the grievor's return to work in January 1996 provided a significant breaking point.

The Board ruled that evidence of events prior to January 15, 1996 was inadmissible, balancing probity and prejudice.

The Union requested that the Ministry produce resumes for several individuals who held Enforcement Officer 4 positions between 1998 and 2002, following an earlier order for training documentation.

The Employer opposed the request.

The Grievance Settlement Board directed the Ministry to produce the resumes, finding them arguably relevant to the issue in dispute.

The grievor, a court services employee, filed multiple grievances regarding accommodation and discipline.

The arbitrator found that the employer failed to adequately accommodate the grievor's medical work restriction on one day and ordered compensation.

However, claims for subsequent days were dismissed as the grievor either refused reasonable assignments or no suitable work was available.

The arbitrator also upheld progressive discipline, culminating in a 15-day suspension, imposed after the grievor repeatedly refused to meet with a supervisor without a tape recorder or union representation, finding the refusals insubordinate.

The union sought to introduce three documents into evidence to prove the employer's discriminatory attitude in a grievance arbitration.

The employer objected to their admissibility.

The Grievance Settlement Board ruled that an internal culture report was admissible with weight to be determined, a prior Board decision between the parties was binding where issues were identical, and a prior Human Rights Board of Inquiry decision was not binding due to lack of issue estoppel, though portions relevant to the grievor could be admitted as narrative.

The parties entered into a Memorandum of Settlement to address applications before the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding events at the Toronto West Detention Centre.

The Vice-Chair of the Grievance Settlement Board was granted jurisdiction to determine employees' entitlement to pay for shifts commencing on November 6, 2001.

The Vice-Chair ordered the parties to meet locally to determine who is properly on the 'B' list, and directed that those properly on the list shall have the equivalent of one-third of their pay for that shift returned to the Ministry.

The union filed three grievances on behalf of the grievor alleging improper displacement, violation of seniority provisions, and discrimination.

At the hearing, the grievor, supported by her father, refused to testify.

As the union was unable to put forward any evidence to substantiate the allegations without the grievor's testimony, the employer brought a motion to dismiss.

The Vice-Chair granted the motion and dismissed the grievances due to a lack of evidence.

During a grievance arbitration regarding employees' entitlement to pay for a specific shift, the Union requested an adjournment because the Local Union President, who was acting as an advisor, was hospitalized and unable to attend.

The Vice-Chair denied the blanket adjournment request, noting that the Union had three other Local Union executive board members available to instruct counsel.

The Vice-Chair ruled that the hearing could proceed with the Union's evidence, and the Union could renew its adjournment request later if disputed evidence regarding the absent advisor's conduct arose.

The union requested an adjournment of a grievance arbitration hearing because its primary advisor was hospitalized.

The employer opposed the request, noting the parties' commitment to an expeditious resolution.

The arbitrator held that the advisor's absence alone was insufficient to adjourn the hearing, as the union had three other advisors.

However, given the suddenness of the illness, the arbitrator granted the adjournment for the immediate hearing date but ordered that subsequent dates would proceed regardless.

The employer brought a motion to dismiss portions of the grievances or preclude the union from calling evidence due to a lack of particulars regarding allegations of discrimination, harassment, and a poisoned work environment.

In the alternative, the employer sought an order for particulars.

The Grievance Settlement Board declined to dismiss the grievances or preclude evidence, noting the importance of hearing the dispute on its merits and the protracted nature of the proceedings.

However, the Board ordered the union to provide crisp and clear particulars of the facts upon which it intended to rely, following the standard set out in Ross.

The grievor sought Long Term Income Protection (LTIP) benefits and wished to pursue a complaint before the Joint Insurance Benefits Review Committee.

The employer argued that a memorandum of settlement, which resolved four previous grievances and terminated the grievor's employment, barred her claim.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the release clauses in the settlement were broad enough to encompass the LTIP complaint, precluding the grievor from pursuing her claim.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the union's grievance, which sought a right of re-election for classified employees regarding a transfer of services, was barred by a memorandum of settlement resolving an earlier grievance.

The arbitrator interpreted the release clause in the settlement, which barred claims 'arising out of' the prior decision.

The arbitrator concluded that the release only covered claims posed by the earlier grievance and left unresolved, and did not extend to the current claim for re-election.

The preliminary objection was dismissed.

The grievor, a correctional officer, was discharged following allegations that he asked a female intermittent inmate to take her clothes off and invited her to meet him at a restaurant outside the institution.

The employer also alleged he made a discriminatory remark during the investigation.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the employer's identification of the grievor as the perpetrator was fundamentally flawed, as the complainant's description was insufficient and another officer with a similar name was on duty in the area.

The Board concluded the allegations were not proven and directed the grievor's reinstatement.