OGSB 2018

The union alleged that the employer breached the collective agreement by engaging in discrimination, harassment, and abuse of authority when it requested that the grievor's short-term sickness benefit forms be separated by calendar year (2016 and 2017).

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that even if the employer was wrong to request the separation, the request did not amount to harassment or discrimination.

The evidence did not show that the request required extra doctor visits or caused additional stress.

The union filed a grievance alleging the grievor was improperly denied compensation for using his personal cell phone for work activities, claiming the employer exercised its management rights unfairly.

The matter was referred to expedited mediation/arbitration under the collective agreement.

The arbitrator denied the grievance without written reasons, in accordance with the parties' policy for expedited hearings.

The claimant appealed the denial of her continuing Long Term Income Protection (LTIP) benefits.

The insurer terminated benefits at the change of definition date, asserting she could perform sedentary work despite her chronic back pain and degenerative disc disease.

The arbitrator upheld the appeal, finding that the medical evidence, including an Independent Medical Examination noting a 20-minute sitting and standing tolerance, did not establish an ability to perform sedentary work.

The arbitrator concluded that a functional abilities evaluation should have been conducted and remitted the matter of ongoing compensation to the parties.

The parties encountered difficulties regarding pre-hearing production of documents.

The arbitrator made several oral orders, confirmed in this decision, directing the union and grievor to produce documents they intend to rely on, directing the employer to make inquiries regarding specific documents including a Mutual Aid Report and training materials, and directing the union to file full particulars of any defamation claim.

In the context of a termination grievance, the parties failed to reach a settlement and proceeded to schedule arbitration dates.

Following discussions on process issues, the arbitrator issued an interim decision ordering the grievor to produce his cellular telephone records for a specific date, including calls, emails, text messages, and internet history logs.

The grievor was directed to obtain these records from his service provider if necessary and provide them to the union's counsel.

The Union sought an order for the production of documents related to three grievances concerning the discipline of the grievor.

Following a teleconference, the Arbitrator ordered the Employer to disclose and produce any and all arguably relevant documents pertaining to the discipline by September 18, 2018.

The Union filed a grievance alleging the Employer modified a non-bargaining unit position such that it should be included in the bargaining unit, and failed to notify the Union of the changes.

The Employer raised a preliminary objection that the grievance was untimely and barred by the doctrine of laches, arguing the Union knew of a compensation review three years prior.

The Arbitrator dismissed the preliminary objection, finding the Union was not informed of substantive job duty changes and therefore could not have acquiesced.

Alternatively, the Arbitrator held that the failure to remit union dues for an allegedly improperly excluded position constitutes a continuing grievance, making it timely.

The parties previously settled grievances alleging harassment and discrimination by signing Minutes of Settlement (MOS) that provided the grievor with a paid leave of absence until retirement.

The grievor subsequently claimed she was also entitled to severance pay.

The arbitrator held that the clear language of the MOS precluded any additional payments, noting the grievor had accepted the generous settlement terms with the assistance of her union representative.

The grievor's claim for additional compensation was dismissed.

The grievor failed to attend a scheduled expedited mediation-arbitration session regarding his grievance for an alleged improper denial of compassionate leave.

The grievor had previously missed a session and was given notice of the current session by the local Union President.

No reasonable explanation was provided for his absence.

The arbitrator ordered the grievor to attend the next scheduled session, failing which the grievance would be deemed withdrawn.

The union grieved the termination of a correctional officer who left a cell door unlocked, allowing two inmates unsupervised access to a dayroom.

The grievor was subject to a last chance agreement that mandated termination for failing to observe unlocked inmates or carry out duties diligently.

The arbitrator found that the grievor failed to conduct a systematic check of the cell doors and did not ask his co-workers to complete the lock-up.

As the grievor's conduct violated the last chance agreement, the arbitrator had no jurisdiction to modify the penalty of dismissal.

The union filed a grievance alleging workplace harassment and bad faith by the grievor's manager, as well as a claim for vacation pay.

The vacation pay issue was resolved at mediation for $50.

On the harassment allegations, the arbitrator found that the manager's actions—allocating fewer audit hours than the guideline, requesting a written rationale for an educational course, and disputing a medical note regarding a 5-minute discrepancy—were reasonable exercises of management rights and did not constitute harassment or bad faith.

The grievance was allowed only with respect to the agreed $50 vacation pay.

The grievor, a Customer Service Representative, filed a grievance alleging the employer breached the Collective Agreement by issuing a three-day suspension without pay.

The discipline was imposed for violations of the Respectful Workplace Policy, specifically for sending highly offensive and inappropriate emails containing derogatory language to a female colleague.

The arbitrator found the grievor's behaviour warranted discipline and that the three-day suspension was modest and just in the circumstances.

The grievance was dismissed.

The Union sought production of a confidential workplace restoration report and related documents, and requested that the grievor be permitted to adduce her evidence in chief by way of a will-say statement.

The Employer opposed both requests, arguing the report was confidential and not arguably relevant, and that oral testimony was required for credibility assessment.

The Arbitrator ordered production of the report with strict confidentiality restrictions, finding it arguably relevant for cross-examination or corroboration.

The Arbitrator also permitted the use of a will-say statement to improve efficiency, granting the same option to the Employer.

The parties appeared before the Grievance Settlement Board for a scheduled hearing, but the employer's counsel was unable to attend due to illness.

To prevent further delays, the arbitrator issued a preliminary decision directing the employer to advise of any preliminary motions and to produce all arguably relevant documents by specified dates.

The union was also directed to follow up on a request for clinical notes from one of the grievor's medical service providers.

The matter was adjourned to the next scheduled hearing date.

The grievor failed to attend her scheduled grievance arbitration hearing regarding pension credits and pay issues.

The employer requested that the grievance be dismissed.

The arbitrator declined to dismiss the grievance immediately, instead issuing a direction requiring the grievor to provide a written explanation for her non-attendance and failure to provide notice, warning that failure to do so could result in dismissal.

The union grieved that a store manager performed bargaining unit work, such as facing up stock and bagging purchases, contrary to a Letter of Understanding in the collective agreement.

The arbitrator found that while the tasks were typically performed by bargaining unit employees, they were also historically performed by managers as overlapping duties.

Given the brief duration and infrequency of the manager's activities over a six-month period, the arbitrator applied the de minimis principle and concluded there was no practice or intention to avoid scheduling bargaining unit employees.

The grievance was dismissed.

The Employer requested an adjournment of the hearing scheduled for July 6, 2018, due to the unexpected illness of its counsel.

The Employer was unable to find a replacement.

The Arbitrator granted the adjournment, noting the absence of counsel and the lack of other productive activities that could be accomplished on that date.

The union sought an order for the Office of the Chief Coroner to produce investigation statements relating to a fire at Place Mont Roc that resulted in two fatalities.

Neither the employer nor the Coroner opposed the production.

The Arbitrator ordered the Coroner to produce the requested documents, subject to standard confidentiality conditions restricting their use to the instant proceeding.

The grievor, a casual Customer Service Representative at the LCBO, filed two grievances: one alleging harassment and bullying by her manager, and another challenging her termination.

The harassment grievance alleged that the manager unfairly scheduled her, excessively monitored her, and communicated inappropriately.

The arbitrator dismissed this grievance, finding the manager's actions were reasonable exercises of management rights and not vexatious.

The termination grievance arose after the grievor, upon learning of a transfer, made death threats against her manager, including stating she wanted to slit his throat and shoot him.

The arbitrator upheld the termination, finding the threats constituted serious workplace violence under the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The arbitrator concluded that the employment relationship was irreparably damaged and there were no compelling mitigating factors to substitute a lesser penalty.

The Union filed a job-posting grievance regarding a competition for the Enforcement Services Officer position.

The arbitrator exercised discretion under Article 22.16 of the collective agreement to order a re-run of the job competition, noting that the best possible outcome for the grievors would be a re-run rather than direct placement into the positions.

The arbitrator remitted the logistics of the re-run to the parties.