OGSB 2021

The grievor failed to attend the scheduled arbitration hearing.

The Union was granted an adjournment on the condition that the grievor provide a written explanation for her non-attendance by a specified date, failing which the grievance would be dismissed.

The grievor failed to provide the required explanation despite multiple attempts by the Union to communicate with her.

Consequently, the grievance was dismissed.

The grievor failed to attend the scheduled hearing for his termination grievance.

The employer requested that the grievance be dismissed, while the union requested time to contact the grievor.

The arbitrator ordered the grievor to provide an explanation for his non-attendance and failure to provide notice by a specified date, failing which the grievance would be dismissed.

The union filed a policy grievance regarding whether the term 'regular salary' in Article 41.3 of the collective agreement includes across-the-board salary increases and special adjustments from an interest arbitration award.

The employer argued that the salary should be fixed at the time the employee goes on WSIB benefits.

The arbitrator held that the ordinary meaning of 'regular salary' includes negotiated wage adjustments, as there was no express language fixing the value indefinitely, unlike other provisions in the agreement.

The grievance was allowed.

The employer brought a motion to dismiss a grievance regarding missing pension contributions on the basis that it was not filed within the 30-day time limit set out in the collective agreement.

The grievor discovered in 2014 that there was an 18-month period in 1993-1994 with no pension contributions, and learned in 2015 that the employer was responsible for failing to remit the withheld funds.

The employer argued the grievor ought reasonably to have discovered the issue much earlier by reviewing his annual pension statements.

The arbitrator dismissed the motion, finding it was not reasonable to expect an employee to conduct a detailed forensic analysis of annual statements to verify that every deducted contribution had been properly remitted, absent any indication of a problem.

The grievance was deemed timely.

The union grieved that 'survey stops' performed by transport enforcement officers violated the Highway Traffic Act and section 9 of the Charter.

In a prior decision, the Grievance Settlement Board held it would only have jurisdiction if the employer's directions clearly and unambiguously required functions resulting in such violations.

At the hearing, the union was unable to provide evidence or prior decisions establishing that survey stops constitute a clear violation.

Consequently, the employer's motion to dismiss the 'survey stops' portion of the grievance for lack of jurisdiction was granted.

The union referred a grievance challenging a 10-day suspension to arbitration more than three years after it was filed.

The employer raised a preliminary objection regarding timeliness.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding it was referred well outside the collective agreement time limits and there was no reasonable basis to exercise statutory discretion to extend the time limits, noting the discipline was already off the grievor's record.

In a grievance arbitration under the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act, the Grievance Settlement Board directed the union to provide the employer with full and complete particulars of its case no later than 60 days prior to the next hearing date.

The employer brought a motion to dismiss a grievance alleging harassment and bullying on the basis that it was not filed in a timely manner.

The grievance was filed 14 months after the deadline provided in the collective agreement.

The union requested an extension of time limits under section 48(16) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The arbitrator declined to exercise discretion to extend the time limits, noting the significant delay, the fact that the delay occurred at the initial filing stage, and the lack of a consistent explanation from the grievor.

The grievance was dismissed.

The union brought a grievance concerning a job competition.

The arbitrator issued procedural orders directing the employer to produce copies of applications and appraisals for several job competitions, subject to redactions of personal identifying information.

The documents were ordered to be used solely for the present grievances and destroyed at the conclusion of the matter.

The Association filed a grievance on behalf of an employee who was offered a promotion with an 11% salary increase due to an administrative error.

The employee accepted the offer, but the employer realized the mistake the next day and issued a new offer with a 3% increase, which the employee signed.

The Association argued the first offer was a binding contract.

The Arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that in a unionized environment, the employer is entitled to correct an honest administrative error where there is no detrimental reliance, distinguishing the situation from common law employment contracts.

The Union filed a policy grievance asserting that Article 39.4(6) of the 2014 collective agreement, which provided a $0.25/hour annual wage increase for Transit Safety Officers, continued to form part of the 2018 collective agreement.

The Employer argued that the 2018 Memorandum of Settlement, which provided for across-the-board wage increases, implicitly removed the specific increase for Transit Safety Officers.

The Arbitrator found that the 2018 Memorandum did not expressly remove the provision and that the across-the-board increases served a different purpose than the specific wage adjustment for Transit Safety Officers.

The grievance was allowed, and the Arbitrator declared that Article 39.4(6) forms part of the 2018 collective agreement.

In a grievance arbitration concerning unjust discipline and harassment, the Union requested the production of specific documents and records.

The Employer resisted, arguing the requests were a 'fishing expedition' and not arguably relevant.

The Arbitrator applied the arguable relevance test, noting that production may be premature if issues are not clearly defined by particularized allegations.

The Arbitrator ordered the production of certain documents related to the discipline imposed on the grievor and the treatment of a specific youth person, but denied or narrowed other requests that were overbroad or lacked a sufficient probative nexus to the particularized allegations.

The Union filed a grievance on behalf of an employee whose employment was declared abandoned under section 42 of the Public Service of Ontario Act, 2006.

The grievor failed to appear at videoconference hearings before the Grievance Settlement Board on March 25 and May 7, 2021.

The Employer requested that the grievance be dismissed.

The Arbitrator declined to dismiss the grievance immediately, instead directing the grievor to provide a written explanation for her non-appearance and failure to provide notice.

The Employer reserved the right to bring a motion to dismiss if the explanation was insufficient or not provided.

The grievor, a warehouseman with 17 years of service, grieved a three-day suspension, a ten-day suspension, and his ultimate termination for workplace harassment.

The discipline stemmed from repeated incidents of aggressive and discriminatory behaviour directed at co-workers, particularly an accommodated worker.

The union argued the grievor's conduct was non-culpable due to underlying mental health issues and that the employer failed in its duty to inquire about a disability.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievances, finding no medical evidence to establish a nexus between the grievor's mental health and his misconduct, and no sufficient basis to trigger a duty to inquire.

Given the grievor's lack of remorse, repeated misconduct, and failure to heed a final warning, the termination was upheld.

During a grievance arbitration concerning the employer's alleged failure to accommodate the grievor's restrictions, the employer sought an order for the disclosure of the grievor's complete medical file going back to 2012.

The employer argued that the grievor's family physician had reviewed the pre-2016 file when making recommendations during the relevant 2016-2018 period.

The arbitrator dismissed the request for broad disclosure, finding that the employer's ability to cross-examine the physician was not prejudiced in the absence of the complete file.

The union was directed to disclose only a 2012 x-ray that the physician had specifically relied upon.

The union brought two preliminary motions in a grievance arbitration concerning allegations of workplace sexual harassment and discrimination.

First, the union sought to anonymize the grievor's name to protect their privacy given the sensitive personal and medical information involved.

Second, the union sought production of the personnel file of the employee accused of harassment.

The arbitrator granted the anonymization request, finding it an appropriate case to protect privacy.

The arbitrator also ordered the employer to produce specific categories of documents from the accused employee's personnel file, subject to redactions for irrelevant health information and the deemed undertaking rule.

The Union alleged that the Employer breached Minutes of Settlement dated January 13, 2021.

The Arbitrator issued an order directing the grievor to repay $8,341 for 2019 vacation credits by July 1, 2021, to avoid its inclusion on his 2021 T4.

The Employer was ordered to pay the grievor for his accumulated vacation credits for 2019, 2020, and 2021 between January 1 and March 31, 2022.

The Union filed a policy grievance alleging the Employer breached its health and safety obligations by failing to remove a roadside memorial erected outside the Elgin Middlesex Detention Centre.

The memorial, dedicated to inmates who died in custody, caused psychological harm and triggered post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms in correctional officers who were first responders to the deaths.

The Arbitrator found that the Employer failed to take every precaution reasonably necessary to protect the health and safety of the employees.

The grievance was allowed, and the Employer was ordered to remove the memorial and retain its contents for 30 days to allow families to collect their property.

The grievor filed 14 grievances alleging workload issues but failed to attend the scheduled expedited hearings.

The Board previously issued an order compelling her attendance and warning that the matters could be dismissed if she failed to appear.

After the grievor failed to attend the rescheduled virtual hearing despite receiving written notice, the Board dismissed the grievances.

The union filed a grievance alleging the grievor experienced discrimination on the basis of union activity after obtaining a developmental opportunity through a prior grievance settlement.

The union argued the grievor was treated differently regarding seating arrangements, denial of a compressed work week during training, access to protected time, and being required to report to a manager against whom she had filed a harassment complaint.

The arbitrator found the employer provided rational business explanations for the treatment and preferred the evidence of the employer's witnesses over the grievor's on disputed facts.

The grievance was dismissed.