Lisa Compagnone

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to goods, services, and facilities because of disability, claiming the process of receiving long-term disability benefits was prolonged.

The respondents sought early dismissal under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

A summary hearing was scheduled by telephone conference.

The applicant failed to attend the hearing or communicate with the Tribunal.

Consequently, the application was dismissed as abandoned.

The union filed two grievances on behalf of a laid-off employee who was unsuccessful in a competition for a full-time position after failing a written French language test.

The grievances alleged the position should have been directly assigned to the grievor, or alternatively, that she should have been the successful candidate.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered that the hearing be bifurcated to first address whether the written French language requirement was a legitimate exercise of management rights, and whether the redeployment grievance was timely, as these preliminary issues could be dispositive.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued preliminary directions regarding the order and manner of proceeding for grievances filed by AMAPCEO and ALOC concerning the termination of the grievor's employment and articles.

The Vice-Chair directed the employer to advise if it agreed to have the grievances heard together, scheduled a preliminary motion by ALOC, and set out a timeline for the exchange of pleadings, documents, and particulars.

The applicant, a correctional officer, alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of race and colour, specifically regarding the employer's failure to prevent a recurrence of racist hate mail.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed the applicant's request for production of documents and the Union's request for intervenor status.

The Tribunal granted the Union non-party intervenor status to address matters of broad application to the workplace.

The Tribunal also ordered the respondent to produce certain documents related to the investigation of the racist hate mail, finding them arguably relevant, while deferring other broader production requests until the applicant testifies at the hearing.

In a grievance arbitration concerning a disciplinary discharge, the Association asserted that the complainant suffered from a mental health disability that mitigated the culpable conduct.

The employer sought an order for the production of the complainant's medical records prior to the continuation of the hearing.

The Association resisted, arguing that production should be delayed until after the employer presented its case.

The Grievance Settlement Board granted the employer's request, ordering the production of specific medical records and clinical notes, finding that the complainant's health had already been put in issue and that early disclosure would serve both parties.

The grievor was released from employment during his probationary period for failure to meet the requirements of the position.

The union grieved the release, alleging it was a disguised disciplinary dismissal and discriminatory.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to summarily dismiss the grievance, arguing the union's particulars failed to disclose a prima facie case.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the employer's motion, finding that while the union's particulars were insufficient, summary dismissal was an extraordinary remedy.

The Board held that the employer bears a limited onus to establish the release was valid, and ordered the employer to call its evidence first while directing the union to provide further particulars.

The union filed a grievance alleging the employer discriminated against a 69-year-old fixed-term cook on the basis of age by failing to schedule him for extra shifts during a co-worker's sick leave.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the grievance on the basis that the union's particulars did not establish a prima facie case.

The Grievance Settlement Board granted the motion, finding that the particulars failed to establish adverse treatment or that the grievor's age was a factor in the scheduling decisions.

The grievance was dismissed.

The complainant, a senior manager, grieved that the employer breached a settlement agreement by offering her a Project Manager position reporting to a manager she disliked, and subsequently grieved her termination for just cause.

The employer terminated her after discovering she had attended a full-time college program while collecting short-term sick benefits, and had been untruthful during the ensuing investigation.

The Public Service Grievance Board dismissed both grievances, finding no breach of the settlement agreement and concluding that the complainant's deliberate dishonesty and lack of remorse irrevocably broke the employment relationship, justifying her discharge.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued a consent direction ordering the Union to provide all material facts it intends to rely upon to the Employer by September 15, 2013.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the Association's claim that the employer failed to comply with a Memorandum of Settlement.

The employer argued that the Board lacked jurisdiction because the settlement did not explicitly incorporate the dispute resolution mechanism from the collective agreement.

The Board dismissed the motion, finding that the settlement explicitly stated the Board remained seized with respect to its implementation, interpretation, and remedial aspects, thereby conferring jurisdiction to hear the non-compliance claim.

The Union sought production of documents related to a job competition.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the Employer to produce all arguably relevant documents in its possession to Union Counsel no later than thirty days prior to the next hearing date.

The Board also imposed a confidentiality order, directing that the documents be used only for the purposes of the hearing and that the grievor return them to Union Counsel upon conclusion of the proceedings.

The union requested an order for the appointment of an independent investigator to investigate a racist hate mail campaign at the Toronto Jail, arguing the employer's internal investigation was inadequate.

The Grievance Settlement Board denied the request as premature, finding that the employer had made substantial efforts and that the parties must first address the implementation of recommendations from a previous review of the employer's investigation.

The complainant filed a grievance alleging a breach of minutes of settlement and challenging their termination.

The Public Service Grievance Board found no breach of the settlement and concluded that the employer had proven just cause for the termination.

The complaint was dismissed, with full reasons to follow.

This is the final decision in a series of mediation-arbitration proceedings addressing systemic remedies for a poisoned work environment at the Toronto Jail between 2005 and 2008.

The Vice-Chair reviewed the 48 Objectives Requiring Action agreed upon by the parties to address issues of racism, harassment, and workplace culture.

The Board concluded that, subject to an ongoing challenge regarding the investigation of hate letters, all agreed actions have been successfully carried out and implemented.

The complainant, who was off on sick leave, disputed whether the employer's proposed return-to-work plan met her medical restrictions.

She requested that the employer facilitate and pay for a review of the plan by the physician who had previously conducted an Independent Medical Examination.

The employer argued that the duty to accommodate did not require it to initiate and pay for medical approval of a plan it considered appropriate.

The Public Service Grievance Board held that the employer's duty to accommodate is ongoing and includes taking reasonable steps to ensure a return-to-work plan meets the employee's restrictions, especially when genuine concerns are raised.

The Board directed the employer to facilitate the requested review or take other measures to ensure the assignment met the restrictions.

The unions filed a grievance alleging that the Employer failed to implement Phase 3 of the Ontario Public Service Personnel Screening Checks Policy in a timely manner.

The Grievance Settlement Board declared that the Employer's failure to commence harmonization by late 2010 was inconsistent with a reasonable interpretation of its obligations under the Policy.

However, because the Employer presented a plan to commence the process during the hearing, the Board declined to order specific timelines for completion, immediate harmonization of re-checks, or formal document production, allowing the Employer's process to unfold while remaining seized of the matter.

The union filed a policy grievance on behalf of two groups of correctional officers, alleging the employer failed to provide a workplace free from harassment and discrimination.

The workplace became poisoned due to anonymous racist and threatening hate mail, leading to severe racial divisions and a breakdown of trust among staff.

The employer admitted liability for negligence in its handling of the situation between 2005 and 2008.

The arbitrator found that while the employer did not write the letters, its response was inadequate and failed to sufficiently address the systemic issues until 2008.

The arbitrator awarded $1,500 to each affected employee in Group A and $1,000 to each affected employee in Group B for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued a brief decision appointing Michael A. Davis to conduct a review of the Ministry's investigation into hate crimes, following consultation with the parties.

The Union brought a motion to limit the evidence relating to the reasons for the grievor's discharge to seven weeks from the date he was provided with full reasons for termination.

The grievor was terminated for allegedly falsifying plant logs, with the employer relying on discrepancies between the plant log and security system records going back almost two years.

The Union argued the employer had constructive knowledge of the discrepancies and that it was unfair to expect the grievor to recall specific events from up to 23 months prior.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the motion, finding the employer acted promptly upon actual knowledge and that the grievor would not be prejudiced as the employer bore the burden of disproving his general explanations for the discrepancies.

This decision follows previous rulings dealing with systemic remedies for discrimination and harassment at the Toronto Jail.

The Grievance Settlement Board reviewed the progress of the employer and the union in implementing agreed-upon objectives, including staffing analyses, performance development plans, and human rights training.

The Board noted the withdrawal of several union proposals that were addressed by a new workplace discrimination and harassment policy, and issued further directions on the handling of future complaints.