85 total
Grievance allowed; employer ordered to void and remove Respectful Workplace Office letters from complainant's file.
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.
Pre-hearing document production denied; historical accommodation records not arguably relevant to current grievance.
The Association filed a grievance alleging the employer failed to accommodate the grievor's request to telework five days a week in 2024.
Prior to the hearing on the merits, the Association sought production of documents relating to the employer's handling of the grievor's previous accommodation requests between 2018 and 2023.
The employer objected, arguing the documents were irrelevant and barred by the Board's three-year rule.
The Arbitrator dismissed the request for production, finding that the historical documents were not arguably relevant to the specific 2024 decision made by a different manager, and lacked a clear nexus to the positions in dispute.
Procedural directions issued for hearing a preliminary jurisdictional objection regarding benefit administration consent requirements.
The Association filed a grievance alleging that the Employer and Canada Life imposed an unreasonable precondition on members receiving negotiated health benefits by requiring blanket consent to obtain personal health information.
The Employer raised a preliminary objection to the Board's jurisdiction over Canada Life's administration of the provision.
The Arbitrator issued procedural directions, ordering the exchange of will-say statements and documentary production prior to the continuation of the hearing on the preliminary issue.
Consent order issued for the production of the grievor's medical records in a grievance arbitration.
During a grievance arbitration, the parties held a conference call to discuss issues regarding the production of the grievor's medical records.
The parties agreed to terms for the production of files from several doctors and requested that the agreement be issued as a consent order.
The Arbitrator issued the consent order, requiring the union to make best efforts to produce the specified medical records by October 31, 2025, subject to certain conditions regarding confidentiality and relevance.
Grievance over denial of remote work request dismissed; manager's discretion was not fettered by policy.
The Association filed a grievance alleging the Employer breached the collective agreement by denying the complainant's request for an alternative work arrangement (AWA) to work remotely five days per week.
The Association argued the manager's discretion was fettered by a blanket three-day in-office rule imposed by the Employer.
The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the manager genuinely exercised her discretion in good faith by considering the complainant's individual circumstances and the operational viability of the unit, rather than rigidly applying a blanket rule.
Arbitrator issues procedural order formalizing agreed continuation dates and document exchange timetable.
The parties met to attempt to mediate a settlement of the grievance.
They agreed to continuation dates in April and May 2026 and established a timetable for the exchange of documents, particulars, and preliminary arguments.
The arbitrator issued a decision formalizing the agreed-upon case management schedule.
Employer ordered to produce civil suit settlement document to Association in benefit dispute grievance.
The Association grieved that an employee's benefit dispute was improperly processed as a civil suit against the insurance administrator rather than through the collective agreement's dispute resolution procedure.
The parties reached a tentative settlement but disagreed on whether the Employer must disclose the civil suit settlement document to the Association.
The Employer argued the document was irrelevant and protected by settlement privilege.
The Arbitrator ordered production, finding the document was central to the grievance and that the 'public good' exception to settlement privilege applied, as the Association had a right to verify the facts of the alleged breach of the collective agreement.
Employer's motion to adjourn hearing due to witness on parental leave denied.
The Employer brought a motion to adjourn the remaining scheduled dates for an ongoing grievance arbitration hearing because its next witness, the grievor's former manager, was on parental leave.
The Association opposed the request.
The Arbitrator applied the established factors for granting an adjournment and found that while the Employer had a valid reason, the indefinite length of the requested adjournment and the prejudice to the grievor, who would have to continue working without the requested alternative work arrangement, outweighed the reasons for the delay.
The motion for an adjournment was denied.
Consent order issued setting procedural timetable and continuation dates for labour arbitration.
The Grievance Settlement Board issued a consent order establishing a procedural timetable for the continuation of a labour arbitration.
The order set dates for the exchange of particulars, document production, and will-say statements, and scheduled continuation hearing dates for July and August 2025.
Consent order issued setting continuation dates and timelines for remote work grievances.
The Association filed complaints alleging the employer contravened the collective agreement by limiting requests for alternative work arrangements to work remotely at home.
The parties agreed upon a consent order setting out continuation dates and timelines for process, including particulars and production.
The Board issued the consent order and remained seized with the complaints.
Employer breached collective agreement by applying blanket return-to-office policy to deny remote work request.
The grievor requested an alternative work arrangement (AWA) to work remotely five days a week.
The Employer denied the request, relying on Secretary of Cabinet memoranda that mandated a return to the office for a minimum of three days a week.
The Association grieved the denial, arguing the Employer failed to consider the request in good faith and the operational viability of the AWA, as required by Article 47.1 of the Collective Agreement.
The Grievance Settlement Board allowed the grievance, finding that the Employer applied a blanket policy, fettered its managerial discretion, and actively avoided disclosing the true reasons for the denial.
The matter was remitted to the manager for reconsideration in accordance with the Collective Agreement.
Employer breached collective agreement by fettering managers' discretion to consider remote work requests beyond office standard.
The union grieved the employer's decision to limit remote work to a maximum of three days per week upon the return to the workplace following the COVID-19 pandemic.
The union argued this blanket rule violated the collective agreement by fettering the discretion of local managers to approve alternative work arrangements (AWAs) for up to four days of remote work, which had been the previously announced office standard.
The arbitrator found that while establishing an office standard is a valid exercise of management rights, the employer's memos effectively directed managers not to consider requests for AWAs in excess of the three-day remote work standard.
This constituted an improper fettering of the managers' obligation under the collective agreement to consider AWA requests in good faith.
The grievance was allowed, and the employer was ordered to advise managers to consider such requests in good faith, though the arbitrator declined to order the implementation of a four-day remote work standard.
National Day for Truth and Reconciliation recognized as a paid holiday under public sector collective agreements.
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.
Employer's extrinsic evidence regarding its reasons for not recognizing a new statutory holiday ruled inadmissible.
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.
Order granted compelling witness to attend rescheduled arbitration hearing after failing to appear.
The Employer brought a motion for an order compelling a witness to attend a rescheduled arbitration hearing.
The witness had been duly served with a summons and conduct money but failed to join the video conference on the initial hearing date, later claiming illness and forgetfulness.
The Association did not oppose the motion.
The Arbitrator granted the order pursuant to the powers incorporated from the Labour Relations Act, 1995, directing the witness to attend the next scheduled hearing date and warning of potential consequences for further non-compliance.
Grievance allowed; employee returning from acting management assignment entitled to full, un-prorated merit increase.
The union grieved the employer's decision to pro-rate the grievor's annual merit increase after she returned to her bargaining unit position from an acting management assignment.
The employer argued that the merit increase should be pro-rated based on the time actually worked in the bargaining unit position during the previous 12 months.
The arbitrator held that the collective agreement language did not link the merit increase to performance and that the provisions governing return from temporary assignments required the grievor to be placed in the position she would have been in had she continuously occupied her home position.
The grievance was allowed.
AMAPCEO found to have relinquished bargaining rights over correctional Sergeants to OPSEU in 2008/2009 agreements.
The Association (AMAPCEO) filed disputes asserting that Sergeants and Youth Service Managers employed in correctional institutions were covered by its collective agreement.
The Employer and the intervening union (OPSEU) argued that AMAPCEO had relinquished any such bargaining rights in 2008 and 2009 agreements, and that OPSEU held 'wall-to-wall' bargaining rights for all employees at correctional facilities.
The Arbitrator found that AMAPCEO had indeed relinquished its rights regarding these positions through a 2008 Memorandum of Agreement and subsequent collective agreement, and that any representation rights for these employees, to the extent they do not exercise managerial functions, are held by OPSEU.
Consent order issued setting timetable for exchange of particulars and documents.
The parties agreed to a consent order requiring the exchange of particulars and documents.
The arbitrator issued a procedural order setting out the timetable and requirements for the employer and the union to provide written particulars of their allegations of fact and copies of all documents on which they intend to rely.
Benefit offset dispute conditionally adjourned pending related termination arbitration to protect grievor's procedural rights.
The Association filed a dispute regarding an insurance carrier's right to withhold payment of valid benefit claims to offset an alleged debt arising from previous allegedly fraudulent claims.
The Employer sought to have the fraud allegations determined within this Joint Benefits Review Committee process.
The arbitrator ruled that the offset issue could proceed only if the parties agreed to assume prior payments were improperly received without deciding the fraud issue.
Absent such agreement, the matter would be adjourned pending the outcome of a separate termination dispute to avoid prejudicing the grievor's rights in that forum.
Arbitrator issues procedural directions for exchange of particulars and witness declarations in bargaining unit grievance.
The Association filed a grievance alleging that the position of 'Night Residence Manager' falls within the bargaining unit.
Following a case management session, the Arbitrator issued procedural directions for the exchange of particulars, the filing of witness declarations in lieu of oral evidence in chief, the preparation of a joint book of documents, and the scheduling of a videoconference hearing with time limits on oral evidence and cross-examination.
