OGSB 2007

The union requested an adjournment of a discharge grievance hearing because the grievor failed to attend.

The employer requested that the grievance be dismissed.

The grievor had previously been granted two adjournments and had failed to maintain contact with union counsel or provide updated contact information.

The arbitrator found that the grievor had compromised the union's ability to proceed and had likely abandoned interest in pursuing her grievance.

The request for an adjournment was denied, and the grievance was dismissed.

The grievor, a Programmer/Analyst, alleged that the employer discriminated against him on the basis of race by failing to provide him with a promised knowledge transfer for a new software application (RANDI).

The employer argued that the knowledge transfer was halted because the grievor lacked the necessary foundational skills in MS Access, and that its decisions were based on operational requirements and client feedback.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding no evidence that the employer's actions, even if flawed or unfair, were tainted by racial discrimination.

The employer brought a motion for non-suit after the union closed its case in a grievance arbitration.

The Grievance Settlement Board reviewed the principles governing non-suit motions, noting that the responding party need only establish a prima facie case and that the moving party would not be put to an election in this instance.

Finding that the union had met the standard of a prima facie case, the Board dismissed the employer's motion for non-suit.

The Union requested an order for the production of documents relating to grievances alleging discriminatory assignments based on gender and discriminatory refusal of compassionate leave.

The Employer argued the requests were improper fishing expeditions.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the Employer to provide access to schedules, assignments, and log books, finding them arguably relevant to the claim of a pattern of discriminatory assignments.

However, the Board denied the request for broad documentation regarding compassionate leave granted to other staff, as the Union failed to point to specific similar incidents.

The union filed grievances alleging that the employer discriminated against employees absent from work due to work-related injuries by not counting their WSIB leave time towards the calculation of continuous service dates, attendance credits, and merit pay.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the failure to include WSIB time for continuous service date purposes discriminated on the basis of disability, as seniority is primarily a participation/access benefit.

However, the Board dismissed the grievances regarding attendance credits and merit pay, concluding that these are compensation benefits tied to work, and the exclusion of WSIB time for these purposes did not constitute discrimination.

In a union grievance, the Grievance Settlement Board ordered the Employer to produce particulars of its case to the Union.

The Board also ordered that the Employer lead its evidence first due to its control over the work in dispute, noting this has no impact on the onus.

The union requested the reinstitution of the hearing process for a policy grievance concerning whether certain persons performing bargaining unit work should be characterized as employees.

The Vice-Chair issued a procedural order setting out a schedule for mediation/arbitration dates, updated disclosure requirements for the employer, and a process for the parties to state their positions and meet to narrow the issues in dispute.

The union filed numerous grievances regarding the alleged exposure of correctional institution employees to tobacco smoke.

At the hearing, the list of outstanding grievances was uncertain.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the union to provide written particulars of each grievance by April 30, 2007, and ordered the employer to provide written particulars of any preliminary objections by June 29, 2007, before scheduling further hearings on preliminary matters or the merits.

The union requested an adjournment of a discharge grievance arbitration because the grievor failed to attend the hearing.

The employer opposed the adjournment and moved to dismiss the grievance.

The Grievance Settlement Board noted that the grievor had been warned by union counsel that failure to attend could result in dismissal, yet failed to appear or provide an explanation.

Finding that the delay and non-attendance caused unnecessary prejudice and costs, the Board denied the adjournment and dismissed the grievance.

In a grievance alleging improper surplusing, the union identified a single position it asserted the grievor was qualified to assume.

At the conclusion of the union's evidence regarding the grievor's capability to meet the minimal requirements of that position, the employer moved for a non-suit.

Applying the standard that a responding party need only establish a prima facie case, the Grievance Settlement Board found that some evidence existed to support the union's claim.

The employer's non-suit motion was dismissed.