Lisa Compagnone

The Union raised concerns about the thoroughness and pace of the Employer's investigation into hate crimes at the Toronto Jail, specifically regarding a letter discovered in April 2010 and another received in November 2010.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the Employer to disclose the identity of its handwriting expert by January 31, 2011, and to recommend a candidate to review the investigations by December 17, 2010.

The Union was given deadlines to respond to these appointments, with any unresolved issues to be addressed at a subsequent hearing.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued a follow-up decision regarding the implementation of systemic remedies at the Toronto Jail.

The Vice-Chair reviewed the progress of various action plans, including the issuance of Standing Orders, peer coaching, dress code enforcement, staffing analysis, performance development plans, and workplace discrimination and harassment training.

Several objectives were deemed accomplished, while others remain subject to ongoing monitoring and future meetings between the union and the employer.

The union grieved that the employer violated the collective agreement by capping termination pay for employees whose work was transferred to the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA).

The employer argued that employees who accepted job offers with the CRA had voluntarily resigned and were therefore only entitled to termination pay accrued up to December 31, 2008.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the employer had severed the employment relationship by transferring the work, and the employees' choice to accept a job with the CRA was a 'deemed resignation' rather than a 'voluntary resignation'.

The grievance was granted, entitling the transferred employees to full termination pay.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued a procedural direction ordering the union to provide the employer with full particulars in support of its claim within 30 days.

The Union filed a policy grievance alleging the Employer violated the collective agreement by refusing to provide H1N1 vaccinations to institutional employees.

The Employer raised preliminary objections, arguing the grievance was moot because the H1N1 crisis had ended.

The Grievance Settlement Board applied the doctrine of mootness, finding that the issue of vaccinations for staff was no longer a live controversy and a decision on the merits would provide no practical guidance for future pandemics.

The grievance was dismissed as moot.

The Grievance Settlement Board conducted a review of the implementation of its previous remedial orders aimed at restoring a workplace free from harassment and discrimination at the Toronto Jail.

The Board noted progress on several fronts, including the issuance of Standing Orders, management training, and the installation of security equipment.

The Board varied certain orders, establishing new deadlines for performance development plans, diversity training, and the implementation of the new Workplace Discrimination and Harassment Prevention (WDHP) policy.

The Board also clarified the role of the seconded Deputy-Superintendent in overseeing the restoration process.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision that substituted a lengthy suspension without pay for the grievor's dismissal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application on two grounds.

First, the applicant's unexplained delay of over a year and a half in perfecting the application caused prejudice to the respondent and warranted dismissal.

Second, the arbitrator's decision to deny back wages was entirely reasonable and within his broad remedial jurisdiction under the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The court found no denial of procedural fairness, as the issue of penalty was in play throughout the hearing.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued a procedural decision on consent to suspend the investigation of Workplace Discrimination and Harassment Policy (WDHP) complaints filed by various grievors, as the substance of those complaints would be addressed within the grievances before the Board.

The Employer was directed to notify investigators and provide details of the affected complaints.

The Board also assigned additional hearing dates for specific grievors.

In a mediation-arbitration process concerning systemic issues of racism, discrimination, and harassment at the Toronto Jail, the Grievance Settlement Board directed the union and the employer to commit to a comprehensive set of objectives and action plans.

These directives aim to foster a fair, respectful, and inclusive work environment, addressing areas such as union-management collaboration, workplace hospitality, handling of hate mail, recruitment and promotion, orientation and training, operations, and conflict resolution.

The employer brought a motion to dismiss the union's grievance for failure to assert a prima facie case.

The grievance alleged that the employer violated the collective agreement by denying the grievor's request for a lateral transfer.

The union conceded that the positions were not identical, as required by the collective agreement, and abandoned its allegation of bad faith.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the facts alleged by the union, even if proven true, would not establish a breach of the collective agreement.

The motion was granted and the grievance was dismissed.

The grievor, who suffered from Bi-Polar Affective Disorder, submitted a letter of resignation shortly after being discharged from an involuntary psychiatric admission.

The employer refused to allow him to rescind the resignation, arguing it was valid and voluntary.

The union grieved, arguing the grievor lacked the capacity to form the subjective intent to resign due to an exacerbation of his mental illness.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the grievor was exhibiting classic symptoms of the manic phase of his disorder, which impaired his ability to think rationally and logically.

The Board preferred the evidence of the grievor's treating psychiatrist over the employer's expert, concluding the grievor lacked the capacity to form the intent to resign.

The grievance was allowed and the grievor was reinstated to sick leave status.

The grievor, a correctional officer, was discharged after being convicted as a party to a vicious assault on an inmate.

The union grieved the discharge, arguing that mitigating factors warranted a lesser penalty.

The Grievance Settlement Board applied the Supreme Court's decision in Toronto (City) v. C.U.P.E. to preclude relitigation of the facts underlying the criminal conviction.

The Board found that the employer established just cause for discharge, noting the grievor's participation in the assault, his attempts to cover it up, his intimidation of a fellow officer, and his lack of candour throughout the proceedings.

The grievance was dismissed.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued an interim award following a multi-day arbitration hearing.

The Vice-Chair ordered the immediate reinstatement of the grievor to his former position, or alternatively, placement on sick leave benefits if fitness to return to work was an issue.

Full reasons for the reinstatement were to follow.

The employer brought an interim application in the discharge grievances of two correctional officers who were found guilty of being parties to an assault causing bodily harm against an inmate.

The employer sought an order acknowledging that the Board was bound by all factual findings made by the trial judge in the criminal proceedings, and an order requiring the union to disclose material it intended to rely upon for mitigation.

The Board dismissed the application, holding that in an adversarial proceeding, it is for the employer to decide how to prove the material facts it believes are required to discharge its onus, and the Board would not advise the employer on how to proceed at the outset of its case.

The grievor, a maintenance electrician, was called back to work twice on a statutory holiday.

The employer paid him holiday pay for the first call-back and standard call-back pay for the second.

The union grieved, arguing he was entitled to holiday pay for both call-backs.

The Grievance Settlement Board allowed the grievance, finding that the grievor suffered the double inconvenience of being called back twice on a holiday, triggering the superior holiday pay benefit for both instances without constituting pyramiding.

The grievor, a Probation and Parole Officer, received a 20-day suspension for substandard case management following an audit.

The Union raised a preliminary objection, arguing the Employer breached the duty of fairness and deprived the grievor of union representation by failing to disclose the intended level of discipline during pre-disciplinary meetings.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the objection, finding no right under the collective agreement or the Labour Relations Act to union representation at pre-disciplinary meetings, and holding that the duty of fairness does not require an employer to discuss the intended level of discipline before imposing it.

The grievor, a correctional officer acting as an Operational Manager, was discharged after slapping a fellow correctional officer in the sally port of the Windsor Jail following an incident of horseplay where the fellow officer kicked a heavy metal door shut, nearly catching the grievor's hand.

The union grieved the discharge, conceding the conduct warranted discipline but arguing discharge was too severe.

The arbitrator applied the Reville factors and found that the grievor's long history of stellar performance, the isolated nature of the incident, his genuine remorse, and the expert psychological evidence supporting his successful reintegration warranted mitigating the penalty.

The grievance was allowed in part, and the discharge was substituted with a one-month suspension, conditional upon a formal apology.

The union filed grievances on behalf of water bomber pilots claiming that upon termination of their 1991 compressed work year agreement, they should be governed by the 1995 Float Agreement or alternatively the 1988 Float Agreement.

The employer argued they were excluded from the 1995 Float Agreement and should default to the standard collective agreement.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the plain language and negotiating history of the 1995 Float Agreement explicitly excluded the water bomber pilots.

However, the Board held that the 1988 Float Agreement remained the default agreement for these pilots, as the 1991 agreement was a temporary trial that did not extinguish their prior rights.

The grievor challenged an unsuccessful job competition and requested disclosure of all candidates' test results and answers.

The Board ordered the grievor to provide written particulars of his grievance before ruling on the disclosure request.

After the grievor failed to provide particulars despite multiple extensions and notices, the employer brought a motion to dismiss the grievance.

The Board granted the motion, holding that while unrepresented grievors should not face overly onerous procedural burdens, they must still provide basic particulars to establish the relevancy of requested documents.

The grievor failed to appear at the scheduled arbitration hearing because he was at work.

The parties agreed to adjourn the matter rather than delay the start of the hearing.

The Grievance Settlement Board adjourned the hearing and set new dates, noting that the new dates would be peremptory on the grievor and that any future failure to appear could result in the dismissal of the grievance.