13 total
Human rights application against WSIB and union dismissed for failing to allege Code-related discrimination.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability and reprisal against his employer, the WSIB, his union (ATU), and a union representative.
The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss regarding the WSIB, ATU, and the union representative, as the narrative failed to connect their actions to any prohibited grounds under the Code.
The applicant did not file submissions in response.
The Tribunal found it plain and obvious that it lacked jurisdiction over these respondents, as the allegations against the WSIB did not engage the Code, and the union's alleged failure to pursue a grievance was not tied to discriminatory factors.
The application was dismissed against the WSIB, ATU, and the union representative.
Procedural order issued setting a schedule for the parties to resolve outstanding remedy calculations.
Following a previous decision, the parties were unable to resolve the issue of remedy regarding the monetary amount payable to the grievor.
The Vice-Chair issued a procedural order setting a strict schedule for the exchange of spreadsheets, responses, and payment, with a provision for a teleconference if agreement could not be reached.
Grievances over continuous service date calculations dismissed as employer correctly applied 40-hour week threshold.
The union filed grievances on behalf of several Ambulance Communication Officers, arguing that the employer improperly calculated their continuous service dates (CSD) when they transitioned from fixed-term to regular full-time employees.
The union contended that the employer's strict requirement of 40-hour work weeks to count towards CSD unfairly disregarded hours worked under compressed work week agreements.
The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievances, finding that the clear language of the collective agreement supported the employer's calculation method, which required 40 hours per week to constitute a 'full-time week' for fixed-term employees.
Grievance regarding 1991 WSIB reporting failure dismissed as 16 years out of time.
The union filed a grievance in 2010 alleging the employer failed to report the grievor's 1991 surgery and lost time to the WSIB.
The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the grievance as untimely.
The Grievance Settlement Board found the grievor knew or ought to have known of the failure to report by 1994, making the grievance 16 years late.
The Board declined to extend the time limits under section 48(16) of the Labour Relations Act, finding no reasonable grounds for the delay and substantial prejudice to the employer due to faded memories and missing documentation.
The grievance was dismissed.
Employer's preliminary motion to dismiss grievance regarding abandonment of position denied; viva voce evidence required.
The Employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the grievance, arguing that the Union failed to raise a prima facie defence to the declaration that the grievor abandoned her position under section 42 of the Public Service of Ontario Act, 2006.
The Employer sought to have the motion decided solely on the Union's statement of particulars without hearing viva voce evidence.
The Vice-Chair denied the motion, finding that the grievance also encompassed complaints of harassment and failure to accommodate, and that evidence was necessary to fairly and properly resolve the intertwined issues.
Employer directed to reinstate seven vacation days and pay $5,000 for medical expenses.
Following a mediation/arbitration process under the collective agreement, the Grievance Settlement Board directed the employer to reinstate seven vacation days to the grievor's bank and to reimburse her $5,000 for medical expenses upon production of receipts.
Disabled employee working part-time hours due to workplace injury entitled to full-time benefit subsidies.
The grievor, a Worker Advisor, suffered a compensable workplace injury and returned to work on permanent modified duties working half-days.
The Employer converted her status to part-time and reduced its contributions to her health and welfare benefits accordingly.
The Union grieved, arguing that under the collective agreement, an employee in receipt of a WSIB award is entitled to continued benefit subsidies at the full-time level regardless of a reduction in hours.
The Grievance Settlement Board agreed, finding that the specific collective agreement provision protected the grievor's full-time benefit entitlements.
The Board also found the grievor was entitled to full salary for the first 65 days of her absence and directed the parties to calculate the amounts owing.
Denial of short-term sickness benefits for a work-related injury covered by WSIB is not discriminatory.
The grievor, who suffered a work-related injury, was accommodated by working four days a week.
He received WSIB benefits but experienced a wage shortfall for the fifth day.
The Employer denied him access to the Short Term Sickness Plan (STSP) for the fifth day, relying on article 41.5 of the collective agreement.
The Union grieved, arguing this constituted discrimination based on disability under the Human Rights Code, as employees with non-work-related disabilities could access the STSP.
The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the WSIB scheme and the STSP are two distinct plans with separate purposes.
Relying on arbitral jurisprudence, the Board held that providing differential benefits under separate schemes for work-related versus non-work-related disabilities does not amount to prohibited discrimination.
Grievor on WSIB modified work schedule cannot use Short Term Sickness Plan for unworked days.
The grievor suffered a workplace injury and eventually returned to work on a modified schedule, working four days a week.
He sought to use the Short Term Sickness Plan (STSP) to cover his fifth day off.
The employer argued that Article 41.5 of the collective agreement precluded him from accessing the STSP because his absence was due to an injury for which a WSIB award had been made and his initial WSIB leave period had expired.
The Grievance Settlement Board agreed with the employer, finding that the clear language of Article 41.5 applied to the grievor's situation, thereby preventing him from using the STSP for his regular, accommodation-related absences.
Grievance Settlement Board lacks jurisdiction to determine pension contribution entitlement where it depends on LTIP eligibility.
The Union filed grievances challenging the Employer's decision to change the grievor's status from full-time to part-time and the resulting changes to her pay and benefits, including the continuation of pension contributions under article 42.3 of the collective agreement.
The Employer raised a preliminary objection, arguing that the Grievance Settlement Board lacked jurisdiction to determine the grievor's entitlement to pension contributions because it required a determination of her eligibility for Long Term Income Protection (LTIP) benefits, which falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Joint Insurance Benefits Review Committee (JIBRC).
The Vice-Chair upheld the preliminary objection, finding that the threshold question of LTIP eligibility must be resolved by the JIBRC, and therefore the Board lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate this aspect of the grievances.
Employer ordered to disclose documents regarding LTIP benefits but not rehabilitative employment benefits.
The Union sought disclosure of documents relating to the determination of an employee's entitlement to Long Term Income Protection (LTIP) benefits and rehabilitative employment benefits.
The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the Employer to disclose documents regarding LTIP benefits, including its contract with Manulife Financial, but declined to order disclosure regarding rehabilitative employment benefits at this time.
Application for judicial review of an Arbitration Board decision dismissed as not patently unreasonable.
The applicant union sought judicial review of an Arbitration Board's decision regarding whether the union was entitled to grieve a matter as a union grievance.
The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Board's disposition of the issue was not patently unreasonable and reflected a careful analysis of the collective agreement.
Grievance dismissed; employer not required to re-post vacancy when hiring second-place candidate from recent competition.
The union filed a grievance alleging the employer violated the collective agreement by offering a vacant position to the second-place candidate from a recent job competition without re-posting the position.
The first-place candidate had accepted the position but subsequently vacated it.
The union argued that the collective agreement provision allowing the employer to hire qualified candidates from a previous competition within six months applied only to bargaining unit members.
The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding the collective agreement language clear and unambiguous, with no restriction limiting the provision's application to bargaining unit members.
