OGSB 2024

The employer brought a motion to strike several elements of the union's particulars relating to grievances filed by two employees who were disciplined and transferred following an investigation into a toxic workplace culture.

The employer argued that the claims for reputational damage, mental health issues, and lost promotional opportunities were too remote or represented an unwarranted expansion of the original grievances.

The arbitrator granted the motion in part, striking the claims for reputational damage and lost promotional opportunities, but allowing the mental health claims to proceed subject to the union providing more fulsome particulars regarding causation.

The Grievance Settlement Board previously ordered that any grievors who did not respond to the Union's request for information by October 4, 2023, would have their grievances dismissed.

Several grievors failed to respond by the deadline.

Consequently, the arbitrator dismissed their respective grievances and remained seized of the remaining grievances.

The grievor, a Correctional Officer, filed a grievance alleging the employer breached the collective agreement by issuing a three-day disciplinary suspension for abandoning her post, leaving without authorization, and falsifying her attendance record.

The parties referred the grievance to mediation/arbitration and requested a decision without written reasons.

The arbitrator granted the grievance in part, substituting a lesser penalty of a two-day suspension and ordering the employer to reimburse the grievor for eight hours of pay.

The employer raised three preliminary objections to a grievance challenging the decision to place a pilot on an unpaid leave of absence for refusing to disclose his COVID-19 vaccination status.

The employer argued the grievance was untimely, impermissibly expanded by the union's particulars, and failed to disclose a prima facie violation of the collective agreement.

The arbitrator dismissed all three objections, finding reasonable grounds to extend the short time limit delay, that the particulars regarding the application of Transport Canada's interim order flowed naturally from the original grievance, and that the unpaid leave decision raised a justiciable issue.

The employer brought a motion to dismiss the grievance after the grievor failed to comply with a previous order from the Grievance Settlement Board.

The prior order directed the grievor to provide the union with reasons for her non-attendance at a hearing, failing which the matter could be dismissed.

The union confirmed the grievor was provided with the decision but did not respond.

With no objection from the union, the arbitrator granted the employer's motion and dismissed the grievance.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued a procedural decision regarding the implementation of its prior ruling that the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation was a paid holiday in 2022.

The parties agreed on the methods for calculating retroactive adjustments but not the timetable.

The Arbitrator directed the Employer to propose deadlines within 30 days, failing which a further hearing would be held.

The Arbitrator remained seized of the implementation issues, including the accumulation of seniority.

The grievor, a correctional officer, was placed on a 15-month paid suspension pending an investigation into a workplace harassment complaint filed against her by a coworker.

The investigation ultimately found the allegations unsubstantiated.

The union grieved the suspension, arguing the employer failed to consider alternatives to removing the grievor from the workplace, as required by a 2012 Memorandum of Settlement and the Sabada decision.

The arbitrator upheld the grievance, finding the employer failed to consider whether the grievor could remain in the workplace or the anticipated length of the investigation before imposing the suspension.

The matter of remedy was remitted to the parties.

The grievor challenged the Employer's calculation of her continuous service date and severance credit date, arguing that a four-month unpaid leave of absence in 2010 should have been paid and counted as service due to alleged discriminatory treatment by her manager.

The Employer argued the grievance was untimely.

The Arbitrator agreed with the Employer, finding the delay of over ten years to be extreme and that there was no proper basis to extend the time limits.

The grievance was dismissed.

The grievor failed to attend the scheduled video conference hearing.

The Union representative advised that the grievor's contact information appeared invalid and that she was reportedly out of the country.

The hearing was adjourned at the Union's request.

The arbitrator directed the grievor to provide reasons for her non-attendance by a specified date, failing which the grievances may be dismissed.

The Employer brought a motion to dismiss the grievance on the basis that the grievor failed to comply with a Board order requiring her to provide sufficient medical documentation explaining her non-attendance at a scheduled hearing.

The grievor had provided a medical note stating she suffered from chronic pain, which the Employer argued was insufficient to explain her absence.

At the motion hearing, the grievor testified that she experienced an acute episode of excruciating pain that prevented her from attending or notifying her counsel.

The Arbitrator found the grievor's testimony credible and concluded that her conduct did not reflect a complete disregard for the proceedings, despite her inattention to the specific requirements of the Board's order.

The motion to dismiss was denied.

The Grievance Settlement Board held a pre-hearing case management conference call regarding six grievances referred under Article 22.16.1.

The Arbitrator issued directions for the expeditious and informal resolution of the grievances, setting deadlines for the exchange of documents, witness declarations, and a joint book of documents.

The hearing was scheduled for a single day with strict time limits for each party's case and oral evidence.

The employer requested that the grievance be dismissed due to the grievor's failure to comply with a prior verbal order to provide particulars regarding the date of the alleged collective agreement violation.

The arbitrator granted the grievor a brief extension to provide the particulars, noting that the prior order did not specify that non-compliance could result in dismissal.

The arbitrator ordered the grievor to provide the particulars by a specified date, failing which the grievance would be dismissed.

The employer brought a motion to dismiss the grievance after the grievor failed to comply with a previous order from the Grievance Settlement Board.

The prior order directed the grievor to provide reasons for his non-attendance at a hearing by a specified date, failing which the grievance would be dismissed.

The union confirmed the grievor received the decision but provided no response.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance.

The Union filed six grievances following a provincial government announcement of its intention to increase the number of LCBO agency outlets, alleging a failure to consult.

The Employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the grievances as premature.

The Arbitrator granted the motion, finding that the mere announcement of an intention to open agency outlets did not constitute a breach of the collective agreement, and any alleged future breach was speculative rather than anticipatory.

The grievances were dismissed.

The parties attempted to settle eight consolidated grievances through mediation but were unsuccessful.

The union undertook to provide particulars in preparation for arbitration but failed to do so by the agreed deadline.

Following a conference call hearing, the arbitrator ordered the union to provide full written particulars of the material facts on which it relies by a specified date, warning that failure to comply could result in the exclusion of evidence or dismissal of the grievances.

The union brought a motion for the production of 73 fire investigation reports in the context of a long-standing grievance regarding the grievor's discharge.

The union argued the reports were relevant to whether the employer terminated the grievor in bad faith and continued to act in bad faith by failing to protect his professional reputation, as he was listed as the author on reports finalized after his termination.

The arbitrator dismissed the motion, finding that the post-termination conduct was not part of the essential character of the discharge grievance and that the requested documents lacked arguable relevance to the issues in dispute.

The parties were unable to mediate a resolution to two grievances.

The employer indicated its intention to bring a preliminary motion to remove the union's representative on the basis that he will likely be a witness.

The arbitrator set a schedule for the employer to particularize its request and for the union to respond, and scheduled the preliminary motion for a hearing.

The parties were unable to mediate a resolution to a termination grievance.

On consent, the arbitrator issued a procedural order establishing a timetable for production of documents, an agreed statement of facts, and scheduling the hearing dates for late 2024 and early 2025.

In the context of a grievance arbitration, the Employer sought production of treatment records from a third-party wellness clinic, XR Wellness.

A representative of the clinic indicated they possessed the documents but required an order from the Grievance Settlement Board to produce them.

The Arbitrator ordered the clinic to produce all documentation regarding treatments provided to the grievor and another individual between July 2015 and February 2019 to counsel for the Employer.

The union filed a grievance alleging that the employer discriminated against and failed to accommodate a casual customer service representative by not offering her a modified premium shift on November 11, 2022, given her medical restriction against working past 4:00 p.m.

The arbitrator issued a without-precedent decision reminding the employer of its responsibilities and obligations under the Collective Agreement and the Human Rights Code with respect to the duty to accommodate.