Lisa Compagnone

The Association filed a grievance on behalf of the complainant regarding the processes followed by the Respectful Workplace Office (RWO) in dealing with a complaint.

Following a hearing, the Arbitrator ordered that the Letter of Counsel and the DMA Close-out Letter issued to the complainant be deemed null and void and removed from all files.

The Arbitrator further ordered that the RWO file and all documentation relating to the complaint be deemed null and void as against the complainant and not be relied upon for any purpose.

The Union grieved the Employer's failure to recognize the National Day of Mourning for Her late Majesty Queen Elizabeth II as a paid holiday under the collective agreements.

The collective agreements provided for paid holidays including 'any special holiday as proclaimed by the Governor General or Lieutenant Governor.' The Arbitrator found that the federal and provincial proclamations and statements requested a day of mourning but did not proclaim a public holiday that became the law of the land.

The grievance was dismissed.

The parties could not agree on the implementation timelines for retroactive adjustments following a decision declaring the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation a paid holiday.

The Union requested a July 1, 2024 implementation date, while the Employer proposed assigning holiday Compensating Time Off credits by August 31, 2024, and paying eligible employees by September 30, 2024.

The Arbitrator adopted the Employer's proposal as the earliest reasonable dates for implementation.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued a procedural decision regarding the implementation of its prior ruling that the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation was a paid holiday in 2022.

The parties agreed on the methods for calculating retroactive adjustments but not the timetable.

The Arbitrator directed the Employer to propose deadlines within 30 days, failing which a further hearing would be held.

The Arbitrator remained seized of the implementation issues, including the accumulation of seniority.

Two teachers' unions sought judicial review of Ontario Labour Relations Board decisions regarding collective bargaining with the Crown.

The OLRB had dismissed OSSTF's claim of bad faith bargaining, finding the Crown did not misrepresent its position on grid movement grievances.

The OLRB upheld ETFO's claim of bad faith bargaining but declined to award monetary damages, instead ordering a declaration and notice to members.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard and dismissed both applications, finding the OLRB's factual findings, inferences, and remedial choices were logical, transparent, and entitled to deference given its labour relations expertise.

Following a prior decision declaring the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation a paid holiday in 2022, the parties disputed the method of calculating retroactive entitlements, interest, and payment timelines.

The Arbitrator issued procedural directions establishing a timetable for the Employer to provide principles for retroactive entitlements and interest, and for the Union to respond, with a further hearing scheduled if the parties cannot agree.

Several public sector unions filed grievances against the Crown in Right of Ontario, arguing that the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation should be recognized as a paid holiday under their respective collective agreements.

The collective agreements provided that employees were entitled to any special holiday 'proclaimed by the Governor General or Lieutenant Governor'.

The employer argued that the holiday was created by Royal Assent to a statute, rather than by an executive proclamation, and therefore did not fall within the collective agreement language.

The arbitrator rejected the employer's argument, finding that the parties intended to include any new holiday established by the federal or provincial government, and that Royal Assent by written declaration constituted a proclamation.

The grievances were upheld.

In a grievance arbitration concerning whether the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation is a paid holiday under various collective agreements, the employer sought to introduce evidence regarding its consultations with Indigenous partners and its reasons for treating the day as one of learning and reflection rather than a paid holiday.

The unions objected to the admission of this evidence.

The arbitrator ruled the evidence inadmissible, finding that it was irrelevant to the mutual intention of the parties at the time the collective agreements were negotiated and would cause unnecessary delay and prejudice.

The appellant, an Ontario public service employee, appealed a decision of the Financial Services Tribunal regarding a pension plan amendment.

Upon promotion to a management position, the appellant transferred from the OPSEU Pension Plan to the Public Service Pension Plan.

A 2013 amendment to the OPSEU Plan eliminated the payout of 'Excess Commuted Value' upon such transfers.

The appellant argued the amendment was void under the Pension Benefits Act for reducing an accrued pension benefit.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Tribunal's findings that the excess payment was not a 'pension benefit' and had not 'accrued' at the time of the amendment.

The applicant union sought judicial review of a Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal decision which found that the respondent employers were not statutorily obligated to negotiate the maintenance of pay equity plans following a health services integration.

The union argued that the Pay Equity Act required mandatory bargaining for pay equity maintenance and that the Tribunal's interpretation violated the freedom of association under section 2(d) of the Charter.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Tribunal reasonably interpreted the Act as placing the responsibility for maintaining pay equity solely on the employer, with the union's role limited to monitoring and filing complaints.

The Court also found that the Tribunal's decision did not disproportionately limit Charter protections.

The complainant filed a grievance alleging that a competition for temporary manager positions was fundamentally flawed and that she had been subjected to sexual harassment.

The sexual harassment allegation was conceded as untimely.

Relying on an external investigation report, the Board found several flaws in the competition process, including inconsistent interview panels, unposted requirements, and disproportionate weight placed on interview performance.

However, because the complainant acknowledged she performed poorly in the interview relative to others and would not have been the successful candidate regardless, the Board declined to order the competition re-run and terminated the proceedings.

The employer brought a motion to dismiss a grievance filed in 2011 that was not referred to arbitration until 2015, arguing it was untimely.

The union argued the grievance was arbitrable because the parties agreed to postpone the Stage 2 meeting indefinitely, there was a past practice of holding grievances in abeyance while an employee was on sick leave, and the employer waived its right to object to the time limits.

The Grievance Settlement Board rejected the first two arguments but found that, on an objective basis, the employer's representative had waived the right to object to the late referral during a telephone conversation with the union representative.

The motion to dismiss was denied and the grievance was scheduled for a hearing.

During a conference call to report on mediation progress, the parties agreed that litigation would likely be necessary.

The Employer requested an order for particulars, which the Vice-Chair granted, directing the Union to provide particulars of the grievance by April 21, 2017.

The union requested disclosure of the grievor's Ministry notebook in the context of a dismissal grievance.

Following communications between the parties, they jointly requested a consent order.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the employer to disclose the notebook, subject to redactions for relevance and confidentiality, and restricted its use to the present litigation.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued a procedural ruling on the order of proceedings in a grievance alleging termination without just cause and discrimination.

The employer bore the onus on the termination issue, while the union bore the onus on the discrimination allegations.

The union sought to sever the discrimination issues to be heard first, while the employer sought to bifurcate the termination issue to be heard first.

The Vice-Chair rejected both positions and ordered that all issues be heard together without bifurcation.

The employer was directed to proceed first with its evidence on termination, followed by the union's response and evidence on discrimination, followed by reply evidence.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued a procedural direction ordering the Union to clarify its allegations regarding how the Employer failed to follow the OPS Return to Work Policy and the Health Reassignment Process by November 30, 2015.

The grievor, a Customer Care Representative with Service Ontario, was suspended for twenty days without pay following an incident of inappropriate call handling with a fragile caller.

The union grieved the quantum of discipline, arguing that the grievor's nineteen years of clean service should mitigate the penalty.

The arbitrator found that the grievor's conduct was serious and that she failed to show immediate remorse or report the incident.

The arbitrator concluded that the twenty-day suspension fell within the reasonable range of discipline and dismissed the grievance.

The Employer sought an order for particulars and the production of arguably relevant documents from the Union in relation to a labour grievance.

The Grievance Settlement Board granted the request, ordering the Union's counsel to provide the requested particulars and documents to the Employer's counsel by a specified date.

The grievor, a laid-off Travel Counsellor, applied for a Regular Full-Time Travel Counsellor position but was unsuccessful because she did not meet the mandatory advanced French proficiency requirement.

The union grieved, arguing the requirement was unreasonable given the grievor's 17 years of experience performing similar duties.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievances, finding no evidence of bad faith and concluding that the advanced French proficiency requirement bore a reasonable relationship to the work, especially since the position was located in a designated area under the French Language Services Act.

The grievor was suspended from his position at the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care (MOH) pending an investigation.

During his suspension, he was seconded to the Ministry of the Attorney-General (MAG) as an articling student.

MOH subsequently terminated his employment for cause, which automatically terminated his articles with MAG.

The union argued that the termination of his articles lacked just cause under the ALOC collective agreement.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that the Crown is a single employer, and just cause for termination at MOH is sufficient to satisfy the just cause provisions of the ALOC collective agreement.