Mae J. Nam

The Employer brought a motion to dismiss a grievance challenging a 3-day suspension on the basis of mootness, arguing that it had already rescinded the suspension, compensated the grievor, and cleared her record.

The Union argued that live issues remained, including whether the discipline was a reprisal, whether the grievor was entitled to refuse the work, and whether damages were owed.

The Arbitrator dismissed the motion, finding that the Union's framing of the grievance left concrete and live disputes to be resolved, meaning the matter was not moot.

The employer brought preliminary motions to dismiss three grievances related to job competitions on the grounds that they failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination and were untimely.

The arbitrator found that the union's pleadings, which only alleged the grievor's membership in protected classes and his lack of success in the competitions, failed to establish a nexus between the two, and thus did not disclose a prima facie case of discrimination.

The arbitrator also found the grievances, filed between one and five and one-half years after the competitions, were untimely.

Applying the established factors, the arbitrator declined to exercise discretion to extend the time limits and dismissed the grievances.

In a grievance alleging a failure to accommodate, the Union sought conditions on the disclosure of the grievor's medical documents and an order for particulars from the Employer.

The Employer sought production of a confidential Memorandum of Settlement regarding the grievor's LTIP benefits.

The Arbitrator ordered that the medical documents be disclosed only to Employer counsel and one instructing advisor, with further disclosure requiring consent or a Board order.

The Arbitrator also ordered the Employer to provide particulars of the accommodation steps taken, noting the shifting onus in accommodation cases.

Finally, the Union was ordered to produce the Memorandum of Settlement due to its arguable relevance.

During a teleconference, the arbitrator determined that undertakings relating to the provision of particulars could not be completed by the next scheduled hearing date.

Over the Union's objection, the arbitrator adjourned the hearing date to ensure the particulars could be provided in a timely fashion.

In a grievance arbitration under the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act, the Arbitrator issued procedural directions.

The Union and the grievor were directed to provide full and complete particulars of the grievances to the Employer by October 12, 2018.

The Employer was directed to advise the Union of any preliminary objections by November 9, 2018, ahead of the scheduled continuation of the hearing on November 30, 2018.

The Arbitrator issued case management directions for the arbitration of several grievances relating to a job competition.

The directions set out a schedule for the production of documents, the filing of declarations in lieu of oral evidence in chief, and strict time limits for cross-examination and oral argument at the hearing.