Len Hatzis

The grievor filed a grievance objecting to the employer's refusal to recall him from layoff to fill a vacancy as an abatement officer.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the grievance was barred by issue estoppel, as a previous grievance by the same grievor seeking to displace a junior employee in the same position had been dismissed on the basis that he lacked the 'present ability' to perform the work.

The Vice-Chair held that the 'present ability' test applies differently to displacement versus redeployment/recall if mandatory training is required for the position.

Because there was an unresolved factual dispute about whether training for the abatement officer position was mandatory, the Vice-Chair deferred a final ruling on issue estoppel until that factual issue could be determined.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss grievances alleging that its refusal to negotiate a compressed work week schedule (CWWS) violated the collective agreement.

The employer argued that the collective agreement did not compel it to negotiate a CWWS and that the Board lacked jurisdiction.

The union argued that the employer's refusal was discriminatory and violated management rights, health and safety, and overtime provisions.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the preliminary objection, finding that while the employer is not compelled to negotiate a CWWS, its decision not to do so must be made in good faith, for genuine government purposes, and without violating other provisions of the collective agreement, such as the non-discrimination clause.

The Board has jurisdiction to review the employer's decision-making process.

The grievor, a registered nurse, requested one day of special or compassionate leave to sleep before attending her cousin's funeral, as she was scheduled to work the night shift prior.

The employer denied the request, determining that the circumstances were not extraordinary and that there was sufficient time between her scheduled shift and the funeral.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the employer's decision-making process was reasonable, considered the relevant facts, and appropriately applied the criteria set out in its policy for handling special and compassionate leave requests.

The union grieved the employer's deduction of 11.18 excess vacation credits from the grievor at the end of the year pursuant to Article 46.5 of the collective agreement.

The grievor had failed to use his excess vacation time despite reminders and his subsequent request to carry over the excess was denied because he did not provide an adequate plan to reduce the time or an explanation for why it was not used.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the collective agreement places the obligation on the employee to reduce accumulated vacation to the maximum allowable accrual by year-end, and the employer's decision to deny the carryover request was reasonable under the circumstances.

The union alleged that the employer violated a settlement agreement by failing to consider the grievor's application for an open competition in good faith.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, arguing the settlement agreement only granted the grievor the right to apply to restricted competitions.

The Grievance Settlement Board agreed with the employer, finding that the clear language of the settlement agreement was limited to restricted competitions and did not apply to open competitions.

The grievance was dismissed.

During an arbitration hearing regarding a grievance over a surplus notice and denial of training, the employer sought to adduce evidence from a human resources consultant to contradict the grievor's testimony that he was advised not to grieve the cancellation of his training.

The union objected on the basis of the rule in Browne v. Dunn, arguing the grievor had not been cross-examined on this point.

The Grievance Settlement Board upheld the objection, finding that the employer failed to put the grievor on notice of the intended challenge to his credibility on an essential matter.

The evidence was ruled inadmissible.

The union filed a policy grievance regarding the appropriate remedy when a Correctional Officer is improperly denied an overtime assignment under the local overtime agreement at the Guelph Correctional Centre.

The employer argued for an in-kind remedy (a future overtime opportunity), while the union sought monetary compensation.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that because the local overtime distribution system was voluntary and not a true equalization system, an in-kind remedy would be impractical and inconsistent with the collective agreement.

The Board concluded that a monetary award is the appropriate remedy for the missed overtime opportunities.

The union requested a hearing regarding the implementation of a Memorandum of Settlement.

A conference call was held, during which it was revealed that the grievor had pending unfair labour practice proceedings against the union at the OLRB.

The union and employer subsequently agreed that there was no dispute between them regarding the meaning of the settlement provision in question.

As there was no outstanding request for relief, the Vice-Chair cancelled the scheduled hearing.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the grievance on the basis that it was untimely.

The grievor had failed to attend an interview for a job competition due to illness and was later surplused.

He filed a grievance months after the competition closed and after he was informed his interview would not be rescheduled.

The arbitrator found the grievance was untimely under the collective agreement.

However, applying the factors from Becker Milk and Niagara Hospital, the arbitrator exercised her discretion under section 48(16) of the Labour Relations Act to extend the time limits, noting the serious nature of the grievance (potential link to job loss), the grievor's lack of experience with the grievance process, the relatively short delay, and the lack of substantial prejudice to the employer.

The Grievance Settlement Board heard three grievances filed by the grievor.

The first grievance was dismissed on the employer's undertaking to remove certain letters from the grievor's personnel file.

The second grievance was declared moot.

The third grievance, challenging a job competition, was adjourned on the union's undertaking that it would be dismissed if a reference letter from a judge was confirmed as accurate.

The judge confirmed the reference, but the grievor refused to withdraw the grievance.

The employer brought a motion to dismiss based on the undertaking.

The Board granted the motion and dismissed the third grievance.

The union filed multiple grievances on behalf of a civil court registrar, an unclassified employee, alleging violations of the collective agreement regarding scheduling, work assignments, and anti-union discrimination.

The core issue was whether the grievor was entitled to be paid for 7.25 hours per day regardless of the actual hours worked.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the substantive grievances, finding that the collective agreement explicitly excluded unclassified employees from the 'normal hours of work' provision.

The Board also dismissed grievances alleging anti-union animus and unjust discipline related to the grievor's practice of incorrectly recording 7.25 hours on his timesheets contrary to employer instructions, and regarding the summer lay-off process.

The Employer requested an adjournment of a scheduled hearing date because its newly assigned counsel had a prior commitment at the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

Over the Union's objection, the Grievance Settlement Board granted the adjournment request.

The grievor filed a grievance alleging sexual harassment and discrimination in the workplace between 1991 and 1995.

The employer brought a motion to dismiss the grievance as untimely, as it was filed in January 1998, 26 months after the grievor left the workplace.

The union argued the grievor only became aware of her right to grieve in October 1997.

The Grievance Settlement Board found the grievor was aware of her complaint in October 1995 but chose to pursue a negotiated settlement and other avenues instead of filing a grievance.

The Board declined to extend the time limits under the Labour Relations Act and dismissed the grievance as untimely.

The parties agreed to minutes of settlement resolving a dispute over the review and transfer of employee personnel files.

The settlement established a process for employees to review their files with human resources staff and request the removal of documentation relating to union and discretionary leaves prior to the file being transferred to a new employer.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued a consent award incorporating the terms of the settlement.

The grievor filed a grievance alleging unjust discipline and a two-shift suspension.

Following mediation, the parties executed Minutes of Settlement agreeing to rescind the discipline, remove it from the grievor's file, and provide full redress for the lost wages.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued a consent order incorporating the terms of the settlement.