OGSB 2019

The union filed a grievance alleging that the employer breached the collective agreement by failing to notify the grievor of relocation options when employees were relocated from Toronto to Hamilton and Oshawa.

The matter proceeded to expedited mediation-arbitration.

The arbitrator found no breach of the collective agreement and dismissed the grievance without written reasons, in accordance with the expedited protocol.

The grievor, an electrician, filed a grievance alleging he should have been called in to shut off a fire pump on two dates, rather than plumbers or mechanics.

The matter proceeded by mediation-arbitration.

The Arbitrator found that at the relevant time, the Employer's established call-in procedure for fire pumps listed plumbers first and mechanics second, but did not include electricians.

Although the parties subsequently agreed to add electricians to the call-in order, the Employer acted in accordance with the procedure in place at the time.

The grievance was denied.

In a grievance concerning a job competition, the Union sought production of the personnel files of the challenged incumbents.

The Arbitrator ordered the Employer to produce the files without redaction of personal information, subject to the condition that the documents remain in the possession of Union counsel.

The employer brought a motion arguing that certain aspects of two grievances filed by the union were untimely.

The union argued the issues were part of a continuing grievance regarding accommodation and discrimination, or alternatively, that time limits should be extended.

The arbitrator found that the specific employer decisions grieved were discrete acts subject to the 30-day time limit, not a continuing violation.

The arbitrator declined to extend the time limits under s. 48(16) of the Labour Relations Act, finding no reasonable grounds for the delay, despite the lack of prejudice to the employer.

The union requested an adjournment of a scheduled hearing because counsel was unable to meet a previously ordered deadline to provide a fully particularized will-say statement for the grievor.

The employer consented to the adjournment on the condition that a new deadline be set and that failure to meet it would allow the employer to bring a motion to dismiss the grievance.

The arbitrator granted the adjournment, ordered the union to provide the will-say statement by June 7, 2019, and noted that any failure to meet the new deadline would require compelling reasons to avoid dismissal of the grievance.

The Employer brought a motion to strike portions of the Union's particulars in a grievance arbitration concerning a five-day suspension.

The Employer argued the particulars advanced allegations of general harassment and discrimination that fell outside the scope of the grievance.

The Arbitrator held that the grievance was confined to the allegation that the five-day suspension lacked just cause and constituted harassment or discrimination.

However, the Arbitrator declined to strike all the disputed particulars, finding that evidence of the grievor's stress and overwork could be relevant as mitigating circumstances, provided the events pre-dated the suspension and were not the subject of ungrieved discipline or concurrent proceedings in other forums.

The Employer brought a motion to dismiss a grievance challenging a 3-day suspension on the basis of mootness, arguing that it had already rescinded the suspension, compensated the grievor, and cleared her record.

The Union argued that live issues remained, including whether the discipline was a reprisal, whether the grievor was entitled to refuse the work, and whether damages were owed.

The Arbitrator dismissed the motion, finding that the Union's framing of the grievance left concrete and live disputes to be resolved, meaning the matter was not moot.

A correctional officer filed a grievance alleging the employer violated the collective agreement and the Occupational Health and Safety Act by failing to prevent inmates from setting a series of fires in the Special Handling Unit, resulting in her suffering smoke inhalation.

The arbitrator found that the employer had been forewarned of escalating tensions and failed to take reasonable precautions, such as closing meal hatches or removing contraband, even after the first fires were set.

The grievance was upheld, with a declaration that the employer breached its duty to take reasonable precautions for the safety of the grievor.

The employer requested a teleconference to address three procedural issues in a termination grievance: the grievor's failure to attend a scheduled hearing, the grievor's request to change the hearing venue from Toronto to London for accommodation reasons, and the grievor's failure to fully comply with a prior disclosure order.

The Arbitrator declined to issue orders regarding the failure to attend, granted the request to move the hearing venue to London, and ordered the grievor to request specific cellular telephone records (emails, text messages, and internet history) from his service provider to comply with the disclosure order.

The union grieved a two-day unpaid suspension imposed on a correctional officer for insubordination and unprofessional conduct towards a sergeant.

The grievor admitted to using profanity and initially refusing a direction to write a report.

The arbitrator found the grievor's behaviour was aggressive, inappropriate, and insubordinate.

However, considering the grievor had no prior disciplinary record, the arbitrator reduced the penalty to a one-day unpaid suspension and ordered the employer to compensate the grievor for the other day.

The Union sought to interrupt the Grievor's testimony to accommodate the pre-arranged evidence of her family physician.

The Employer objected, arguing it would be prejudiced in its cross-examination and risk having to recall the physician.

The Arbitrator ruled that the Union may interrupt the testimony, noting the difficulty of scheduling physicians and the Board's reluctance to dictate how parties present their case.

The Employer failed to demonstrate compelling prejudice.

During a case management conference call, the union requested accommodation for the grievors based on medical documentation.

The arbitrator outlined the quasi-judicial nature of the Grievance Settlement Board proceedings and the requirement for medical documentation to substantiate accommodation requests.

The arbitrator directed the union to provide specific accommodation requests and details of any accommodations provided in related criminal proceedings, and directed the employer to respond with any objections.

The parties met to address case management issues.

The Arbitrator ordered a grievor to provide updates on his criminal trial, directed the parties to submit their positions on adjourning the matter pending the criminal trial and on accommodation requests, and ordered the Employer to produce specified documents to the Union.

The Employer requested additional particulars regarding the grievor's allegations of workplace harassment prior to the scheduled hearing on the merits.

The arbitrator granted the request, directing the Union to provide specific details concerning allegations of a false accusation of drug use, discriminatory administration of sick days, unfavourable shift scheduling, and damage to the grievor's reputation, to ensure the Employer knows the case it has to meet.

In the context of grievances alleging a failure to accommodate, a dispute arose regarding the disclosure of the grievor's medical file.

The union opposed employer counsel sharing the redacted medical file with the instructing client and an employer witness without the grievor's consent.

The arbitrator held that requiring consent for each disclosure would be unworkable and cause delay.

Balancing the grievor's privacy rights with the employer's right to defend the grievances, the arbitrator ordered that employer counsel may share the medical information with the instructing client and witness strictly for the purposes of obtaining instructions and preparing for the hearing, subject to confidentiality conditions.

During a discharge arbitration, the Association objected to the Employer calling a late-disclosed witness, Colonel Stasyna, to testify about time sheet practices.

The Association argued the late disclosure was prejudicial and protracted the hearing.

The Arbitrator dismissed the objection, finding no prejudice to the Association's cross-examination of previous witnesses.

However, the Arbitrator granted the Association's alternative request, ordering the Employer to provide a declaration setting out the witness's evidence in chief prior to the next hearing date.

During a teleconference, the Employer requested a direction that the Union provide additional particulars regarding the grievance filed by Mr. Mohamed.

The Union did not object and was working on providing them.

The Arbitrator directed the Union to provide the additional particulars by May 10, 2019.

The parties contacted the Grievance Settlement Board seeking an order for particulars ahead of an arbitration hearing scheduled to begin on April 23, 2019.

The Arbitrator ordered the Employer to produce the 'Investigative Material' to the Union to allow preparation for the hearing, with the condition that the disclosure only be used for purposes related to the proceeding.

The grievor, a Youth Services Officer on a fixed-term contract, filed a grievance alleging harassment and bullying after the employer expressed concern about her availability for pick-up shifts and gave notice that her contract would not be renewed.

The parties proceeded on the basis of representations and submissions and requested a decision without reasons.

The arbitrator found no breach of the collective agreement and dismissed the grievance.

The union filed a grievance alleging the grievor did not receive the correct amount of severance pay upon retirement.

The grievor failed to attend the scheduled hearing.

The arbitrator directed the grievor to provide reasons for his non-attendance by a specified date, failing which the matter would be dismissed.

The grievor failed to provide reasons, and the grievance was dismissed.