Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Monk et al) v. The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services and Ministry of Children and Youth Services), 2010 CanLII 42123

GSB#1995-1694

UNION#1995-0255-0001

Additional File numbers listed in Schedule ‘A’

Under

Before

BETWEEN

Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Monk et al)

Union

and -

The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services and Ministry of Children and Youth Services)

Employer

BEFORE

Owen V. Gray

Vice-Chair

David Wright Ryder Wright Blair & Holmes LLP Counsel

Ferina Murji, Ministry of Government Services Counsel

January 21, 2010.

The Nature of the Grievances

1The approximately 235 grievances before me involve individual employee claims for redress for their allegedly having been exposed to second hand smoke in their workplaces. The earliest of the grievances was filed in January of 1991. The latest was filed in July 2008, after these proceedings had begun in 2006. Each grievance alleges that the grievor’s exposure to second hand smoke was, or was the result of, an alleged violation of the employer’s obligation under the health and safety provision of the collective agreement:¹

The Employer shall continue to make reasonable provisions for the safety and health of its employees during the hours of their employment. It is agreed that both the Employer and the Union shall co-operate to the fullest extent possible in the prevention of accidents and in the reasonable promotion of safety and health of all employees.

2Some of the grievors allege that their exposure to second hand smoke at work caused an identifiable adverse impact on their health. Others do not allege having experienced a specific impact on their health, but are concerned about what the long-term effects may be. On behalf of those who allege specific injury to their health, the union claims damages for the impacts on them of those injuries. On behalf of all grievors, the union seeks a declaration that the employer violated the health and safety article, “general damages in compensation for this violation” and “future compensation for any grievor who in the future becomes ill as a result of having been exposed to second hand smoke in the workplace.”

3Since these proceedings began, considerable time has been spent determining which grievances are to be included in them and what the union and grievors say those grievances are about, and in addressing various preliminary issues that emerged as the nature of the grievances was clarified.² This decision addresses another preliminary issue.

The Preliminary Issue Addressed in this Decision

4The employer takes the position that a number of the grievances before me were filed long after the time limit specified in the collective agreement, and should therefore be dismissed as untimely. To the extent that any of the grievances was filed after the time limit specified in the collective agreement, the union asks that I exercise my discretion under subsection 48(16) of the Labour Relations Act (“the LRA”)³ to extend the time for filing and dismiss the employer’s timeliness objection.

5The parties agreed to address these issues in a test case involving one of the grievors – Greg Gray – in the hope that a determination of these issues in that grievor’s case will enable the parties to resolve them in other cases.

Grievance of Gregg Gray – Agreed Facts

6The parties agreed on the following facts:

The Grievor is a Correctional Officer II. He has been employed with the Ministry since April 1991 and has been assigned to the Vanier Centre for Women in Milton since February 2003.
The Grievor previously worked at the Mimico Correctional Centre from April 1991 to February 2003. During this time he also performed a temporary assignment as a Recreational Officer from June 1998 to September 1998.
The Employer's policy/rules up to 2001 were the inmates could smoke within the institution except for a limited number of areas (including, but not limited to, the dining hall and recreation building).
The Grievor verbally raised concerns with the Employer starting approximately it 1996 about exposure to second hand smoke. These complaints were made to Operational Managers Ken Storey, Gary Tone, Jim Hutchings, Charlie Hinds, Dave Torrance, Tom Montgomery, and Mike Haydar.
Operational Managers Jim Hutchings, Charlie Hinds, and Dave Torrance are no longer employed by the Ontario Public Service.
The Grievor requested a workplace accommodation in March 2000 to work in a smoke free environment. This was relayed to the Employer through a note from the Grievor's medical doctor (attached). The Employer assigned/scheduled the Grievor to a unit that was smoke free but at times his duties would have him wall through buildings or work directly with Officers at stations where smoking would generally be permitted.
The Grievor did not request further accommodations nor did he raise or file further complaint that his accommodation was not satisfactory.
The Employer banned smoking within provincial correctional institutions in 2001. The ban was to include both inmate and staff. The Employer's policy later goes on to include no smoking on any property the buildings/institutions are on.
After 2001, the Grievor was no longer exposed to second hand smoke in the workplace on a regular and ongoing basis. Any occasional exposure to second hand smoke in the workplace after 2001 was simply an occasional nuisance and did not result in any apparent negative health effects when such exposures occurred.
The Grievor did not raise any concerns respecting second hand smoke in the workplace with any member of management or with his doctor between the banning of smoking in 2001 and the filing of his grievance.
The Grievor has never been a smoker. At this time the Grievor is unaware if he suffers from any further damage by his exposure to second hand smoke in the workplace.
In the fall of 2005, shortly before the filing of his grievance, the Grievor learned through a newspaper article that the Federal Court had ordered Corrections Canada to pay $5000 in damages to a federal inmate who had been exposed to second hand smoke while incarcerated on the basis that such exposure was unreasonable, placed the inmate in an unhealthy situation, and caused the inmate to suffer physical discomfort.
At approximately the same time the Grievor learned that a waitress working in an Ontario restaurant had been awarded WSIB benefits as a result of having contracted cancer as a result of long term exposure to second hand smoke in her workplace, despite the fact that the waitress had never been a smoker herself.
When the Grievor learned of these awards he was concerned about the potential that he would suffer future adverse health consequences as a result of having been exposed to second hand smoke at the workplace between his date of hire in April 1991 and the elimination of smoking in the jails in 2001. The Grievor’s direct evidence would be that prior to learning and thinking about these 2 awards the grievor did not believe that he had a right to file a grievance against the Ministry arising from past exposure to second hand smoke related to his above noted concerns.
The Grievor came to the conclusion that if an inmate was entitled to damages for exposure to second hand smoke, he should also have such an entitlement given the Employer's smoking policies between 1991 and 2001. The Grievor's appreciation of the two awards mentioned above resulted in his filing a grievance respecting these issues.
The Grievor filed his grievance on November 18, 2005.
The Grievor has filed multiple grievances in the past, including (but not limited to) grievances filed prior to the 2001 ban on smoking in the workplace for various workplace complaints/issues.
The Ministry does not agree that the grievor has any right or entitlement to file grievances about potential future adverse health consequences.

7The union does not suggest that the grievor conduct identified in paragraphs 4 and 6 of the agreed statement of facts amounted to his taking the first step in the grievance process. Union counsel clarified that the grievor is not asserting in paragraph 14 that he never before considered that he might suffer future adverse health consequences as a result of his exposure to second-hand smoke, but only that before he learned of the outcome of the waitress’s WSIB claim and the federal inmate’s lawsuit he did not see a nexus between the possibility of future adverse health consequences and a right to grieve against the Ministry.

Analysis

8Article 22 of the collective agreement in force in 2005 provided, in part, as follows:

22.1 It is the intent of this Agreement to adjust as quickly as possible any complaints or differences between the parties arising from the interpretation, application, administration or alleged contravention of this Agreement, including any question as to whether a matter is arbitrable.

STAGE ONE

22.2.1 It is the mutual desire of the parties that complaints of employees be adjusted as quickly as possible and it is understood that if an employee has a complaint, the employee shall meet, where practical, and discuss it with the employee’s immediate supervisor within thirty (30) days after the circumstances giving rise to the complaint have occurred or have come or ought reasonably to have come to the attention of the employee in order to give the immediate supervisor an opportunity of adjusting the complaint.

22.14.1 Where a grievance is not processed within the time allowed or has not been processed by the employee or the Union within the time prescribed it shall be deemed to have been withdrawn.

9Prior to 1994, the parties’ collective agreement provided that a grievor had to complain to her or his supervisor “within 20 days of first becoming aware of the complaint or difference.” Under that provision, time ran from the time when the grievor formed a subjective belief that she/he had a complaint that could be the subject of a grievance.⁴ After the 1994-98 collective agreement came into effect, the test was the objective one set out in Article 22.2.1. The time for initiating a grievance runs from when the circumstances complained of came or ought reasonably to have come to the grievor’s attention, whether or not the grievor then realized that those circumstances could be the subject of a grievance.⁵

10Here, the circumstances giving rise to the grievance occurred in a period that began some time prior to 1996, perhaps as early as 1991, and continued until some time in 2001. The grievance was filed in November 2005, which the union concedes is well beyond the time limit specified in the collective agreement.

11Subsection 48(16) of the LRA provides that

48(16) Except where a collective agreement states that this subsection does not apply, an arbitrator or arbitration board may extend the time for the taking of any step in the grievance procedure under a collective agreement, despite the expiration of the time, where the arbitrator or arbitration board is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for the extension and that the opposite party will not be substantially prejudiced by the extension.

Under this provision, an extension is not to be granted unless the arbitrator finds that that there are reasonable grounds for an extension and that it would not cause the opposite party substantial prejudice. Both conditions must be satisfied.

12It is well established⁶ that the factors to be considered by this Board in deciding whether or not to exercise this discretion to extend the time limits are as set out by Arbitrator Burkett in Becker Milk Co.⁷ and by Arbitrator Schiff in Greater Niagara General Hospital.⁸

13In Becker Milk Co., Arbitrator Burkett identified three considerations pertinient to an assessment whether there are “reasonable grounds” for extending a time limit:⁹

The exercise of the equitable discretion vested in an arbitrator under s. 37(5a) [now 48(16] of the Act requires a consideration of at least three factors. These are: (i) the reason for the delay given by the offending party; (ii) the length of the delay; (iii) the nature of the grievance. If the offending party satisfies an arbitrator, notwithstanding the delay, that it acted with due diligence, then if there has been no prejudice the arbitrator should exercise his discretion in favour of extending the time-limits. If, however, the offending party has been negligent or is otherwise to blame for the delay, either in whole or in part, the arbitrator must nevertheless consider the second and third factors referred to above in deciding if reasonable grounds exist for an extension of the time-limits. … The purpose of the section is to alleviate against technical bars. If the offending party has been negligent in its processing of the grievance but the delay has been of short duration an arbitrator would be permitted to rely on the short period of delay as constituting reasonable grounds for an extension. If the grievance involves the termination of an employee, as distinct from some lesser form of discipline, this is also an equitable consideration which must be taken into account, in deciding if there are reasonable grounds to extend the time-limits.

In Greater Niagara General Hospital Arbitrator Schiff added three more considerations: whether the delay occurred in initially launching the grievance or at some later stage, whether the grievor was responsible for the delay and whether the employer could reasonably have assumed the grievance had been abandoned.

14The delay here was in initiating the grievance, rather than later in the grievance process. He did not file a grievance after he raised concerns in 1996 that he says were ignored, nor after it accommodated him in 2000, so the employer would have had no reason to suppose that the grievor had an ongoing complaint that it was not making reasonable provisions for his safety and health. The grievor is solely responsible for the delay.

15The reason given for the grievor’s delay is that until shortly before he filed the grievance he did not know or believe that he had a right to do so. It is not suggested that the grievor’s ignorance of his rights was due to a disability that arose from, or existed independently of, the employer conduct alleged in the grievance.

16The combined effect of Article 22.14.1 and the objective test in Article 22.2.1 is that an employee must be diligent in deciding whether or not to grieve about an adverse workplace experience, and in resolving any questions or doubts she or he may have about whether the complaint can be the subject of a grievance.

17The grievor knew he had been exposed to second hand smoke, and that this might have (and, indeed, had had) an adverse effect on him, at the time of the exposure. There is no suggestion that the grievor tried to find out whether those matters could be the subject of a grievance at any time prior to learning that exposure to second hand smoke had led to financial awards in legal proceedings of other sorts. Nor is it suggested that anything prevented him from doing so. The grievor was simply not diligent. In those circumstances, the nature of the grievance and the length of the delay must be considered, to assess whether those factors favour granting an extension despite the grievor’s lack of diligence.

18Employer counsel made submissions that the claim for remedies for future health consequences is not one that can be pursued in a grievance. That was not the issue that the parties had agreed to argue as preliminary matter at this point. To the extent that issues of that sort have not yet been decided in other preliminary rulings, I assume (without deciding) that the remedies claimed are within the Board’s jurisdiction and available on the facts alleged. Even with that assumption, the nature of the grievance weighs less in favour of an extension than it would have in the case of a discharge grievance.

19The delay itself is very lengthy, much longer even than the delays in discharge cases in which this Board has refused to extend time limits.¹⁰

20Of the cases cited by the union in argument, only Re Beachville Lime Ltd.¹¹ involved a delay of comparable length. In that case the employer had deemed the grievor’s employment terminated solely on the basis that its disability insurer had discontinued the grievor’s disability benefits. The denial of benefits was not something that the employee could grieve, although he initially tried: he had to commence an action against the insurer in court, and did. That action was settled about five years after it began, on terms that involved a substantial payment to the grievor. A few months later, after getting legal advice, the union filed a grievance challenging the grievor’s discharge, seeking remedies with respect to the other employee benefits that had ceased when the grievor’s employment had been deemed terminated. The arbitrator found that the employer had known from the outset that the grievor challenged both the discharge and the denial of benefits on which it was based, that the grievor had acted diligently, that all but a few months of the delay had been “necessitated” by the grievor’s taking action to address the dispute with the insurer first, and that the employer had known that the grievor was proceeding in this manner. The employer had not argued that there would be substantial prejudice if an extension were granted. The arbitrator concluded that there were reasonable grounds for an extension in these unusual circumstances, and granted one.

21Here, by contrast, the grievor did not act diligently. He was not pursuing related claims elsewhere. He did nothing that put the employer on notice that had an ongoing complaint about what it was doing or might seek remedies for what it had done or failed to do.

22For these reasons, I am not persuaded that there are reasonable grounds for extending by several years the time limit on which the parties agreed and by which the grievor was bound. Accordingly, it is unnecessary to deal with the parties’ arguments about whether an extension would cause the employer substantial prejudice.

23Accordingly, the grievance of Greg Gray in Board File 2005-2888 is dismissed as untimely.

24The parties should consult with one another and advise the Board whether they can agree on the disposition of timeliness objections in other grievances before me in these proceedings. In the meantime, the hearing in the grievances that remain shall be scheduled for continuation on dates to be set in consultation with the parties.

Dated this 28th day of June, 2010.

Schedule “A”

GSB Number

Grievor Name

OPSEU #

Old OPSEU #

1990-2758

Balazic, Mathias

91B272

1991-0388

Gordon, Robert

1991-0301-0004

91B478

1992-0731

England, Irene

1992-0255-0003

92D187

1992-0731

Marcotte, Robert

1992-0255-0001

92D190

1992-0731

Moreau, Paul

1992-0255-0004

92D188

1992-0731

Mutter, Blaine

1992-0255-0002

92D189

1994-1436

Arnold, Ross

1994-0608-0020

94E455

1994-1436

Gulli, Rina

1994-0608-0022

94E457

1994-1436

Maccarone, Katherine

1994-0608-0017

94E451

1994-1436

Pandzic, Jerry

1994-0608-0013

94E452

1994-1436

Reid, Randy J.

1994-0608-0019

94E458

1994-1436

Sullivan, Robert

1994-0608-0018

94E453

1994-1436

Wysynski, Stephen

1994-0608-0014

94E454

1995-0233

Fraser, Dan

1995-0521-0026

95A546

1995-0267

Cook, Thomas

1995-0521-0023

95A556

1995-1556

Hosegrove, John

1995-0252-0002

95F313

1995-1694

Monk, Randall

1995-0255-0001

95F376

1996-1143

Heathcote, John

1996-0255-0001

96A052

1996-1191

Gordon, Lorne

1996-0255-0008

96A085

1996-1814

Monk, Randall

1996-0255-0005

96A469

1996-1814

Monk, Randall

1996-0255-0006

96A470

1996-1814

Monk, Randall

1996-0255-0007

96A471

2000-0416

Whissell, Alain

1999-0411-0031

00E252

2004-1443

Gordon, Lorne

2004-0234-0393

2005-2428

Howell, John

2005-0234-0278

2005-2430

Gordon, Lorne

2005-0234-0280

2005-2433

Cassidy, Brian

2005-0234-0283

2005-2441

Liddie, Justin

2005-0234-0291

2005-2676

Lantz, Sharon

2005-0234-0356

2005-2677

Dickson, Steve

2005-0234-0357

2005-2678

Black, William

2005-0234-0358

2005-2679

Heathcote, John

2005-0234-0359

2005-2750

King, Lawrence

2005-0234-0482

2005-2751

Measham, Steve

2005-0234-0483

2005-2752

Dickson, Lois

2005-0234-0484

2005-2767

Adams, Ian

2005-0234-0490

2005-2819

Allan, Renetta

2005-0234-0492

2005-2820

Barbora, Diana

2005-0234-0494

2005-2821

Bartnicki, Andrew

2005-0234-0495

2005-2822

Bithell, Robert

2005-0234-0496

2005-2823

Campbell, Wayne

2005-0234-0497

2005-2824

Clarke, Andrea

2005-0234-0498

2005-2825

Curran, Tammy

2005-0234-0499

2005-2826

Archdekin, Shari

2005-0234-0500

2005-2827

Coker, David

2005-0234-0501

2005-2828

Denbak, David

2005-0234-0502

2005-2829

Dooley, Irene

2005-0234-0503

2005-2830

Duff, John

2005-0234-0504

2005-2831

Dusome, Eva

2005-0234-0505

2005-2832

Gerber-Johnston, Karen

2005-0234-0506

2005-2833

Giancola, Elizabeth

2005-0234-0507

2005-2834

Good, Brian

2005-0234-0508

2005-2835

Goodhew, John

2005-0234-0509

2005-2836

Gowan, Irene

2005-0234-0510

2005-2837

Hagen, Paula

2005-0234-0511

2005-2838

Hannigan, Ann

2005-0234-0512

2005-2839

Hart, Nancy

2005-0234-0513

2005-2840

Holwell, Pauline

2005-0234-0514

2005-2841

Hulley, Don

2005-0234-0515

2005-2842

Keenan, David John

2005-0234-0516

2005-2843

Klacik, Don

2005-0234-0517

2005-2844

Kurczak, Robert

2005-0234-0518

2005-2845

Leonard, Blake

2005-0234-0519

2005-2846

Blanda, Josie

2005-0234-0520

2005-2847

Lovell, Pamela G

2005-0234-0521

2005-2848

Lowry, Anisia

2005-0234-0522

2005-2849

Marshall, Debbie

2005-0234-0523

2005-2850

Martin, Dawn

2005-0234-0524

2005-2852

Misurka, Michael

2005-0234-0526

2005-2853

Niemann, Michael

2005-0234-0527

2005-2854

Noble, John

2005-0234-0528

2005-2855

Poole, Joyce

2005-0234-0529

2005-2856

Psenicka, Paula

2005-0234-0530

2005-2857

Raffin, Tony

2005-0234-0531

2005-2858

Raffin, Gloria

2005-0234-0532

2005-2859

Rucko, Mark

2005-0234-0533

2005-2860

Rudden, Lee

2005-0234-0534

2005-2861

Selkirk, Russell

2005-0234-0535

2005-2862

Simpson, John

2005-0234-0536

2005-2863

Sinclair, Bob

2005-0234-0537

2005-2864

Smith, Margaret

2005-0234-0538

2005-2865

Smith, Philip

2005-0234-0539

2005-2866

Solomon, Nancy

2005-0234-0540

2005-2867

Tobis, Nancy

2005-0234-0541

2005-2868

Tyrrell, Lynda

2005-0234-0542

2005-2869

Vanderyt, William

2005-0234-0543

2005-2870

Williams, Susan

2005-0234-0544

2005-2871

Wilson, Angela

2005-0234-0545

2005-2888

Gray, Gregg

2005-0234-0491

2005-2947

Marcotte, Robert

2005-0234-0563

2005-2948

Kerr, Mike

2005-0234-0564

2005-2949

Campbell, Rob

2005-0234-0565

2005-2950

Favaro, Joe

2005-0234-0566

2005-2951

Mutter, Blaine

2005-0234-0567

2005-2982

Baxter, Neil

2005-0234-0584

2005-2983

Kappler, Wayne

2005-0234-0585

2005-2984

Ranck, Kelly

2005-0234-0586

2005-2985

Reis, Carlos

2005-0234-0587

2005-2986

George, Alexander

2005-0234-0588

2005-3024

Clark, Pearl

2005-0234-0596

2005-3025

Lowe, Michael

2005-0234-0597

2005-3026

Toiviainen, Mervi

2005-0234-0598

2005-3229

Cameron, Mark

2005-0234-0667

2005-3234

McQueen, Mark

2005-0234-0672

2005-3309

Miller, Linda

2005-0234-0680

2005-3310

Mcculloch, Jeff

2005-0234-0681

2005-3311

Essery, Earl

2005-0234-0682

2005-3312

Chisholm, Susan

2005-0234-0683

2005-3313

Dwyer, Sean

2005-0234-0684

2005-3314

Millet, Everett

2005-0234-0685

2005-3315

Degan, Peter

2005-0234-0686

2005-3316

Moco, Denis

2005-0234-0687

2005-3317

Bell, Graeme

2005-0234-0688

2005-3318

Fairley, Gregory

2005-0234-0689

2005-3319

Robertson, Colin

2005-0234-0690

2005-3320

Robertson, Michelle

2005-0234-0691

2005-3321

Berg, Dennis

2005-0234-0692

2005-3322

Smith, Stephen

2005-0234-0693

2005-3323

Kurpieweit, Vic

2005-0234-0694

2005-3324

Young, David

2005-0234-0695

2005-3325

Wyse, Robert

2005-0234-0696

2005-3326

Williams, Ron

2005-0234-0697

2005-3327

McArthur, Doug

2005-0234-0698

2005-3328

Hugo, Peter

2005-0234-0699

2005-3329

Suka, Jovan

2005-0234-0700

2005-3330

Faler, Danny

2005-0234-0701

2005-3331

Whelan, Grant

2005-0234-0702

2005-3332

Schrader, Marilynn

2005-0234-0703

2005-3333

Cartwright, Robert

2005-0234-0704

2005-3334

Gendron, Clarence

2005-0234-0705

2005-3335

Moreau, Paul

2005-0234-0706

2005-3336

Linck, Micah

2005-0234-0707

2005-3337

Gallagher, Joanna

2005-0234-0708

2005-3338

Haines, Don

2005-0234-0709

2005-3339

Drew, Stephen

2006-0234-0012

2005-3340

Baxter, Robert

2006-0234-0013

2005-3341

Lyons, David

2006-0234-0014

2005-3342

Villeneuve, Dennis

2006-0234-0015

2005-3343

Longstreet, Fred

2006-0234-0016

2005-3344

Sheppard, Ken

2006-0234-0017

2005-3345

Oosterwyk, John

2006-0234-0018

2005-3346

Marcotte, Robert

2006-0234-0019

2005-3371

Given, Alice

2006-0234-0001

2005-3372

D’Angelo, Tony

2006-0234-0002

2005-3373

Guillou, Martine

2006-0234-0003

2005-3395

Holton, Greg

2006-0234-0004

2005-3396

Jamieson, Dennis

2006-0234-0005

2005-3397

Knott, Cathy

2006-0234-0007

2005-3398

Oswald, Vicki

2006-0234-0008

2005-3399

Reinhart, Jim

2006-0234-0009

2005-3400

Smith, Scott

2006-0234-0010

2005-3481

Ranck, Kelly

2006-0234-0023

2005-3482

Swan, Mike

2006-0234-0024

2005-3483

Brookfield, Kimberly

2006-0234-0025

2005-3484

Dakroub, Mike

2006-0234-0026

2005-3485

Picard, David

2006-0234-0027

2005-3486

Terrey, Paul

2006-0234-0028

2005-3487

Matthews, Mike

2006-0234-0029

2005-3488

Penson, Colin

2006-0234-0030

2005-3489

Hope, Leighton

2006-0234-0031

2005-3490

White, Cathy

2006-0234-0032

2005-3491

Harnden, David

2006-0234-0034

2005-3539

Swan, Colleen

2006-0234-0046

2005-3702

Brown, Linda

2005-0234-0713

2005-3703

Hunter, Michael

2006-0234-0040

2005-3730

Krzywonos, John

2006-0234-0053

2006-0005

McMillan, Wayne

2006-0234-0086

2006-0009

Ormond, Richard

2006-0234-0096

2006-0010

Abbott, Chris

2006-0234-0097

2006-0031

Quinn, Robert

2006-0234-0093

2006-0139

Wint-Inglis, Carmen

2006-0234-0104

2006-0249

Reinhardt, Glenn

2006-0234-0107

2006-0465

Highley, David

2006-0234-0134

2006-0466

Bailie, Steven

2006-0234-0135

2006-0467

Davidson, Raymond

2006-0234-0136

2006-0468

Dennique, Robert

2006-0234-0137

2006-0469

Chroust, John

2006-0234-0138

2006-0866

Lehman, Gary

2006-0234-0186

2006-0867

Bartlett, Wendy

2006-0234-0187

2006-0868

Patterson, Paul

2006-0234-0188

2006-0874

Chmurzynski, Paul

2006-0234-0194

2006-0951

Stoker, Michael

2006-0234-0220

2006-0995

Koster, Mike

2006-0119-0013

2006-0996

Boer, Richard

2006-0119-0014

2006-0997

Lavereau, Raymond

2006-0119-0015

2006-0998

Snow, Laurie

2006-0119-0016

2006-0999

Langille, Linda

2006-0119-0017

2006-1000

Tilley, Raymond

2006-0119-0018

2006-1001

Gobin, Tim

2006-0119-0019

2006-1002

Graham, Robert

2006-0119-0020

2006-1003

Gilham, Sheila

2006-0119-0021

2006-1004

Snider, Todd

2006-0119-0022

2006-1005

Pierce, Don

2006-0119-0023

2006-1006

Hyde, Mary Lou

2006-0119-0024

2006-1051

Oates, James

2006-0234-0233

2006-1132

Power, Thomas

2006-0119-0029

2006-1166

Power, Thomas

2006-0119-0031

2006-1391

Briese, Robert

2006-0234-0280

2006-1393

Perusello, Rick

2006-0234-0282

2006-1394

Mandar, Howard

2006-0234-0283

2006-1395

Courville, Barry

2006-0234-0284

2006-1431

Janes, Rob

2006-0229-0011

2006-1629

Marshall, Paul

2006-0234-0292

2006-1637

Bridge, David

2006-0234-0300

2006-1638

Martinoni, Gord

2006-0234-0301

2006-1639

Holmberg, David

2006-0234-0302

2006-1640

Fusco, Tom

2006-0234-0303

2006-1641

Anderson, Michael

2006-0234-0304

2006-1642

Yole, William

2006-0234-0305

2006-1679

Harris, Daniel

2006-0234-0314

2006-1712

Koster, Hans

2006-0234-0315

2006-2689

Fisher, John

2006-0234-0349

2006-2691

Carberry, Peter

2006-0234-0351

2006-2692

Hall, John

2006-0234-0352

2006-2693

Bozzelli, Dominic

2006-0234-0353

2006-2694

Vandal, Dave

2006-0234-0354

2006-2695

Szymanski, Stephen

2006-0234-0355

2006-2927

Branch, Susan

2006-0234-0457

2006-3116

Renda, Frank

2006-0234-0458

2006-3124

Cowan, Brenda

2007-0234-0003

2006-3125

Atkinson, LeeAnne

2007-0234-0004

2007-0013

Sproat, Dave

2006-0234-0459

2007-0020

Cordeiro, Emanuel

2007-0234-0006

2007-0021

Drummond, Carole

2007-0234-0007

2007-0268

Armour, Stewart

2007-0234-0045

2007-0423

Prestage, Richard

2006-0108-0077

2007-0577

Reville, Joanne

2007-0678-0005

2007-0578

Tomchak, Frank

2007-0678-0006

2007-0579

McCorriston, Ian

2007-0678-0007

2007-0580

DiRenzo, Angela

2007-0678-0008

2007-0581

Nelli, Anthony

2007-0678-0009

2007-0582

Thibodeau, Maria

2007-0678-0010

2007-0583

Boulet, Vance

2007-0678-0011

2008-1928

Tooke, Grace

2008-0218-0001

Footnotes

This was Article 9.1 of the collective agreements from and after the 1994-98 agreement, which came into effect in 1996, and article 18.1 in prior agreements.
Most recently, in a decision released April 29, 2010 I concluded that this Board cannot award a grievor damages “for or by reason of an accident happening to the worker or an occupational disease contracted by the worker while in the employment of the employer” if the alleged accident or disease is or was compensable under either the Workers’ Compensation Act, R.S.O.1990, c. W.11 or its successor, the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997 S.O. 1997, c. 16, Schedule A.
Labour Relations Act, 1995, S.O. 1995, c.1, Sch. A, as amended, which applies here by virtue of subsection 2(1) of the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act, 1993, S.O. 1993, c. 38, as amended.
Pierre, 0492/86 (Verity), Rondeau, 2171/97 (Leighton).
Wilson, 2804/96 (Abramsky), Rondeau, supra, fn. 4, p. 7.
Stone, 1111/99 (Johnston), Smith et al., 2006-2107 (Gray), Faulkner, 2006-2093 (Petryshen), Smith, 2002-0243 (Mikus).
Becker Milk Company and Teamsters Union, Local 647 (1978), 1978 CanLII 3436 (ON LA), 19 L.A.C. (2d) 217 (Burkett).
Greater Niagara General Hospital and O.N.A. (1981), 1981 CanLII 4449 (ON LA), 1 L.A.C. (3d) 1 (Schiff).
supra, fn. 7, at pages 220 and 221.
Gamble, 1635/96 (Gray), Wicken, 2216/98 (Knopf).
Re Beachville Lime Ltd. and C.E.P., Local 3264 (2001), 2001 CanLII 62146 (ON LA), 98 L.A.C. (4th) 346 (Williamson).