OGSB 2021

The union filed two grievances on behalf of the grievor regarding missed overtime and a three-day suspension.

The grievances were filed approximately a year after the events in question.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the grievances were untimely.

The arbitrator agreed, noting that the collective agreement prescribes strict time limits in days and provides that grievances not processed within the prescribed time are deemed withdrawn.

The grievances were terminated.

The union filed a grievance regarding a scheduling issue on behalf of the grievor.

The parties participated in an expedited mediation-arbitration process under the collective agreement.

During mediation, the employer offered to pay the grievor 18.75 hours minus statutory deductions.

The arbitrator found this offer fair and reasonable, directed the employer to pay the amount, and terminated the grievance.

The grievor travelled to Quebec for a ski vacation during a provincial lockdown and was required by the employer to quarantine for 14 days unpaid upon return.

The union grieved the unpaid leave.

Through an expedited mediation-arbitration process, the arbitrator directed the employer to pay the grievor five days sick pay and five days vacation pay, finding this to be a fair and reasonable resolution.

The union alleged that the employer breached a Memorandum of Settlement by holding a meeting with the grievor regarding a matter that was the subject of a fact-finding meeting prior to the settlement.

The settlement resolved all outstanding disputes to date.

The arbitrator found no breach of the settlement, noting that the post-settlement meeting was used to advise the grievor of expectations and did not result in discipline.

The grievance was dismissed.

The employer brought preliminary motions to dismiss two grievances for failing to disclose a prima facie case and to strike certain particulars in a consolidated grievance arbitration.

The arbitrator granted the motion to dismiss the two grievances, finding that the employer's request to waive stage 2 grievance meetings and its issuance of a letter of expectation to a co-worker did not, even if true, constitute a violation of the grievor's rights.

The arbitrator dismissed the employer's motion to strike particulars relating to a co-worker's workplace harassment complaint, finding them arguably relevant to the grievor's claim of differential treatment, and ordered production of the file.

The arbitrator partially granted the motion to strike other particulars for vagueness.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of the grievor alleging wrongful termination.

A hearing was scheduled by videoconference, but the grievor failed to attend.

Union counsel indicated they had been unable to reach the grievor despite multiple attempts.

The arbitrator adjourned the hearing and directed the grievor to provide a reason for her non-attendance by a specified date, failing which the grievance may be dismissed.

The Union requested an adjournment of the arbitration hearing due to the grievor's illness and a recent bereavement.

The Employer consented to the adjournment on the condition that the grievor provide satisfactory medical proof of illness and particulars of the grievance claims, which had been outstanding for over a year.

The Arbitrator granted the adjournment on these terms, ordering that the grievance would be dismissed if the required documentation was not provided by the specified deadline.

The grievor alleged that the Employer violated the Collective Agreement by threatening, bullying, and treating him unfairly, and sought payment for two days of sick time.

The matter proceeded via an expedited Mediation-Arbitration process.

The arbitrator found no violation of the collective agreement or applicable legislation and dismissed the grievance.

Two Fixed Term Correctional Officers filed grievances claiming they were delayed in rolling over to classified status due to the Employer's incorrect interpretation of eligibility criteria in an August 2020 Expression of Interest.

The delay was caused by a separate Union grievance that had to be litigated to resolve the eligibility issue.

The Arbitrator dismissed the grievances, finding that the delay was the inevitable result of the litigation process and that the Employer had not acted in bad faith in its original assessment.

The employer sought an order for particulars regarding the grievor's allegations of harassment and discrimination, after previous requests were not satisfied.

The arbitrator granted the motion, ordering the union to provide full particulars by January 4, 2022, failing which the grievances may be dismissed.

At a hearing convened for two grievances relating to job competitions and alleged discrimination, the parties agreed to use the day for mediation.

However, mediation was unlikely to be productive due to a lack of meaningful exchange of particulars or documents.

The Arbitrator ordered both parties to provide full written particulars of material facts and produce relevant documents according to a set timetable, and directed the employer to provide notice of any preliminary motions or objections.

In an expedited mediation-arbitration process, the union grieved a letter of counsel and a written reprimand issued to the grievor, and requested a transfer to a different store.

The arbitrator found the employer's offer to reduce the sunset clause on the discipline and to transfer the grievor to a closer store upon a vacancy within three years to be fair and reasonable.

The employer was directed to implement these terms and the grievances were terminated.

The Union filed a policy grievance regarding the interpretation of the supplementary health benefits provision in the collective agreement, specifically whether it covers the charges of a psychologist who supervises a psychotherapist providing direct treatment to an employee.

The Employer argued that only direct, face-to-face services provided by a psychologist or social worker were covered.

The Arbitrator allowed the grievance, finding no ambiguity in the collective agreement's broad reference to 'charges for the services of a psychologist'.

The Arbitrator held that supervision is a recognized service within a psychologist's scope of practice that provides direct benefit to the client, and therefore falls within the covered services under the collective agreement.

A group grievance was filed alleging insufficient information was provided to the grievors following the review of an incident.

The matter proceeded to mediation/arbitration.

The parties reached an agreement during mediation, and the arbitrator issued directions resolving the grievance.

The employer was directed to provide a redacted document to union counsel, subject to strict confidentiality conditions, including that it only be shared with the grievors via screen sharing and subsequently destroyed.

The union filed a grievance alleging the employer failed to return the grievor to work with appropriate accommodation.

The parties previously agreed to a timeline for the exchange of particulars and production.

The employer brought a motion for an order compelling the union to provide particulars and production, as the union had not yet done so.

The Arbitrator ordered the union to provide written particulars and copies of documents by specified dates, and ordered the employer to provide its particulars and documents thereafter.

A related grievance was also consolidated into the proceeding.

The union filed a grievance claiming an overtime premium of 50% for hours worked by the grievor on September 13, 2020.

The parties agreed to proceed on the basis of representations and submissions and requested a decision without reasons.

The arbitrator allowed the grievance and directed the employer to pay the overtime premium.

The Union filed several grievances regarding working conditions at the Oshawa Central Ambulance Communication Centre.

During the intervening period, staffing changes occurred, including the hiring of additional staff.

The arbitrator determined that due to these material changes, there was no labour relations purpose to hearing the grievances of the representative grievor.

The grievances were dismissed without a decision on their merits.

The Union sought an order to consolidate two policy grievances and five individual grievances regarding the Employer's Fitness for Duty Policy, specifically its provisions on cannabis use and impairment testing.

The Employer opposed the consolidation, arguing the grievances raised distinct issues.

The Arbitrator found that while there was a continuum of issues, hearing all grievances together would be unwieldy.

The Arbitrator directed that the prohibition policy grievance and three related individual grievances be heard together, while the impairment testing policy grievance and a related individual grievance be heard separately.

The grievor, a Correctional Officer, sent an unsolicited email to a manager containing a human rights tribunal decision regarding a coworker's ongoing issues.

The Employer issued a non-disciplinary Letter of Expectation regarding the tone and content of the email.

The Union grieved, alleging the letter was inappropriate, constituted bullying and harassment, and was motivated by anti-union animus.

The Arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding no jurisdiction to assess just cause for a non-disciplinary letter, and concluding that the issuance of the letter did not constitute harassment or anti-union animus.

The Employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss two grievances for being untimely, to dismiss the human rights discrimination claim in a third grievance for failing to establish a prima facie case, and to strike certain particulars.

The Arbitrator found that the two grievances were filed at least three months beyond the mandatory 30-day time limit and declined to extend the time limits under the Labour Relations Act due to the lack of a satisfactory explanation for the delay.

The Arbitrator also dismissed the discrimination claim, finding no evidence that the Employer knew or perceived the grievor to have a disability prior to the grievance.

Finally, the Arbitrator struck a paragraph from the particulars that relied on statements made during a stage 2 grievance meeting, applying grievance procedure privilege.