Max Halparin

The Union filed multiple grievances alleging that the Employer failed to manage a difficult employee in the Bailiff Department.

The Union argued that the Employer should not have reinstated the employee to the department and that it failed to adequately address his harassing and discriminatory conduct, thereby creating a poisoned work environment.

The Arbitrator dismissed the grievances, finding that the Employer's decision to return the employee to his home position was a reasonable exercise of management rights and did not violate health and safety obligations.

The Arbitrator also concluded that the Employer acted reasonably in responding to complaints about the employee's conduct and complied with its duty to provide a workplace free from harassment and discrimination.

The Union requested pre-hearing disclosure of an Investigation Report and related materials concerning allegations of misconduct by the grievor.

The Employer objected on the basis that the documents contained sensitive personal information and statements from individuals with an expectation of confidentiality.

The arbitrator ordered the Employer to produce the documents subject to strict confidentiality conditions, including restrictions on copying, sharing, and retaining the materials.

The Union requested pre-hearing disclosure of an Investigation Report and related materials concerning allegations of misconduct by the grievor.

The Employer resisted, citing the sensitive and confidential nature of the documents involving current and former employees.

The Arbitrator exercised her authority under section 48(12) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 to order the Employer to produce the requested documents, subject to strict confidentiality conditions restricting their use, distribution, and retention to the arbitration preparation process.

In a grievance arbitration, the arbitrator issued a procedural order regarding the production of documents.

The employer was ordered to produce a complete copy of the grievor's Health & Wellness file to the union by a specified date.

Subsequently, the union was ordered to produce all arguably relevant portions of that file to employer counsel.

The union filed grievances alleging the employer failed to prevent a poisoned work environment by not addressing harassing and bullying conduct and by reinstating the alleged harasser.

At the close of the union's case, the employer brought a non-suit motion seeking to dismiss the grievances.

The arbitrator applied the standard of a prima facie case and found that there was some evidence to support the claim.

The employer's non-suit motion was dismissed.

The Union brought a motion for production of documents in relation to a dismissal grievance and a harassment and discrimination grievance that were ordered to be heard together.

The Arbitrator ordered the Ministry of the Solicitor General to produce all records within its possession and control regarding the discipline of employees other than the grievor in relation to the death of an inmate.

The Union brought a motion to have three grievances (Dismissal, Attendance Support and Management Program (ASMP), and Harassment and Discrimination) heard together.

The Employer opposed the motion and requested the Harassment and Discrimination grievance be deferred pending a College of Nurses disciplinary proceeding.

The Arbitrator ordered that the Dismissal and Harassment and Discrimination grievances be heard together, as they involved allegations of a pattern of disparate treatment.

The ASMP grievance was ordered to proceed as a stand-alone grievance because it involved a broader inquiry and different witnesses.

The Arbitrator declined to defer the Harassment and Discrimination grievance.