GSB# 2024-00944

UNION# 2024-0542-0025

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Before

THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD

BETWEEN

Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Martin et al)

Union

• and -

The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Transportation)

Employer

BEFORE

Kumail Karimjee

Arbitrator

FOR THE UNION

Elizabeth Adeseha Ontario Public Service Employees Union Grievance Officer

FOR THE EMPLOYER

George Parris Treasury Board Secretariat Legal Services Branch Senior Counsel

HEARING

February 10, 2026

Decision

1I was appointed by the parties to determine this harassment and discrimination grievance. On the first and second days scheduled for hearing, the parties engaged in mediation. As set out below, during the second day of mediation, the parties reached an agreement to resolve this grievance. However, an issue has arisen as the grievors did not sign Minutes of Settlement.

2The Employer and the Union both agree that a settlement agreement exists and request an order finding that there is a binding agreement between the parties on the terms set out in the Minutes of Settlement exchanged. The parties agreed to receive a bottom-line decision.

3The basis for finding that an agreement to resolve the grievance was reached is as follows. The parties exchanged specific settlement language via email between counsel for the Union and counsel for the Employer. At 1:07 pm on February 10, 2026, after discussion with the grievors, Union counsel sent an email reply to Employer counsel responding to the specific language proposed to resolve the grievance. Union counsel stated: “[w]e have an agreement to resolve the grievance on this basis…” Of note, the Employer’s proposal accepted is a revision to language initially proposed by the Union.

4I find that the email exchange between counsel is clear and unambiguous. The Union, after discussion with the grievors, accepted specific language proposed by the Employer to resolve the grievance. A binding settlement may be reached without a signed written agreement. At the point of the Union’s acceptance at 1:07 pm, the parties had a binding agreement.

5After the Union’s acceptance of the specific language proposed by the Employer, the grievors unsuccessfully sought to renegotiate the agreed terms. The grievors were unable to negotiate desired revisions. Ultimately, the grievors did not sign the Minutes of Settlement subsequently prepared reflecting the specific language that had already been accepted by the Union. While the grievors requested revisions, they could not change the fact that an agreement had already been reached.

6Given that the specific language agreed to by the parties is confidential, rather than set it out within this decision, I simply order that the parties have an effective and binding agreement on the terms set out in the Minutes of Settlement attached to Union counsel’s email dated February 10, 2026, at 2:55 pm.