Lisa Compagnone

The Union grieved the Employer's decision to fill a Conservation Officer vacancy in Ignace without a posting or competition, relying on Article 6.1.2 of the collective agreement.

The Employer had used the results of a recent competition for a similar position in Dryden.

The Union argued that a vacancy in a different location could not be considered a 'similar vacancy' under the agreement.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that recent amendments to Article 6.1.2 removed language restricting its application to vacancies at the same worksite, thereby allowing the Employer to rely on the prior competition.

The grievor, a Fire Training Specialist, claimed overtime pay for teaching pre-scheduled forest fire fighting courses, arguing this constituted 'related duties' to forest fire fighting under the collective agreement.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, holding that duties are only 'related' to fire fighting if they would not have been performed but for the existence of a particular fire.

Since the courses were pre-scheduled regardless of any actual fire, teaching them did not qualify for overtime pay.

The respondent brought a motion to dismiss the applicants' judicial review application for delay.

The Divisional Court acknowledged substantial delay but found the applicants' unchallenged explanations supported permitting the matter to continue.

The court noted the respondent had not demonstrated prejudice and had taken no prior steps to address the delay.

The motion to dismiss was denied, and the court directed the matter to proceed on the merits.

The Association moved to adjourn the grievance hearing sine die pending reconsideration of the grievor's pension issue by the Ontario Pension Board (OPB).

The grievance alleged improper calculation of the grievor's continuous service date and failure to recognize service for pension purposes.

The Employer opposed the adjournment, arguing the GSB had jurisdiction over the continuous service date issue regardless of the OPB's decision.

The Vice-Chair denied the motion to adjourn, finding that the OPB's determination would not resolve the primary issue of interpreting the collective agreement, and that proceeding with the delayed matter served a significant labour relations purpose.

The grievor challenged an unsuccessful job competition for a temporary assignment.

At the hearing, the grievor moved to exclude the employer's advisor as a potential witness, which the Board denied.

The employer abandoned its preliminary objection to grievability and moved for an order for disclosure.

The Board ordered the grievor to provide full particulars of the allegations, including specific acts, dates, and individuals involved, to enable the employer to prepare its response.

The Union requested interim relief to preclude the Employer from imposing financial consequences, such as suspension or dismissal, on the grievors for failing to meet case closing targets.

The Board applied the two-fold test for interim relief, considering the existence of an arguable case and the balance of potential harm.

The Board found that while the prospect of discipline was troubling to the grievors, the Employer had a fundamental interest in setting and enforcing standards.

Concluding that the balance of potential harm favoured the Employer, the Board denied the request for interim relief.

The union sought interim relief to prevent the employer from suspending or discharging the grievors until their grievances regarding a directive with a threat of discipline were decided.

The employer raised a preliminary objection, arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction to grant interim relief as it was not a 'procedural matter' under s. 48(12)(i) of the Labour Relations Act, and that the motion was premature because no discipline had yet been imposed.

The Board dismissed the preliminary objection, finding that the threat of discipline was specifically raised in the grievances, giving the Board jurisdiction to consider interim relief, and that grieving a threat of discipline before it is carried out is not premature.

The grievor was declared surplus and unsuccessfully applied for an Application Processor position.

Following a settlement of prior grievances, she was given a re-run interview but failed to achieve the required passing score of 70 out of 110.

The union argued the interview was flawed due to disproportionate weighting of a question and inaccurate recording of answers.

The Grievance Settlement Board assessed whether a prima facie case was made out.

The Board found that even if the grievor's scores were adjusted to reflect her best-case scenario based on her own evidence, she would still fall short of the passing threshold.

The grievance was dismissed.

The applicant filed an application alleging that the union breached its duty of fair representation under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act by failing to process his grievance regarding a surplus/layoff notice to arbitration.

The union had grouped his grievance with others and ultimately withdrew it as part of a larger settlement.

The applicant complained about the union's failure to adequately explain his bumping rights and its failure to communicate the withdrawal of his grievance in a timely manner.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that the union had honestly assessed the merits of the grievance and that the delay in communication, while regrettable, did not amount to arbitrary conduct.