GSB# 2023-00861

Union# G-024-23-SO

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Before

THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD

BETWEEN

Amalgamated Transit Union - Local 1587 (Policy)

Union

• and -

The Crown in Right of Ontario (Metrolinx)

Employer

BEFORE

Adam Beatty

Arbitrator

FOR THE UNION

Kassia Bonisteel Ursel Phillips Fellows Hopkinson LLP Counsel

FOR THE EMPLOYER

Diane Laranja Filion Wakely Thorup Angeletti LLP Counsel

HEARING

January 30, 2026

Decision

1I am seized of three grievances filed by the Union. All three grievances raise issues with respect to the assignment and dispatching of mobile station ambassadors (“MSA”) by Metrolinx (the “Employer”).

2The Union seeks to have the three grievances heard together. Metrolinx opposes this request. It argues that the grievances should be heard consecutively.

3For the reasons that follow, I will grant the Union’s request. There is sufficient overlap on the issues raised, the evidence that will be heard, and the witnesses that will be called for all three grievances to justify the Union’s request. Proceeding in this manner will be more efficient without prejudicing either party.

Background

4I note at the outset that I have not heard any evidence in this proceeding. The parties made submissions with respect to the manner of proceeding, however no evidence was called. Both parties relied on jurisprudence in support of their respective positions. The parties also relied on certain documents, including the relevant grievance forms, some email correspondence, and some correspondence between counsel.

5Grievance G-024-23-SO was filed on June 7, 2023. It alleges that the Employer has failed to release standby station ambassadors following 6.5 hours of duty when those station ambassadors have not been assigned a specific piece of work. Grievance 029-24-SO was filed on May 10, 2024. In that grievance, the Union alleges that the Employer has misused and exploited the term “Extra” when assigning and dispatching MSAs. Finally, grievance 031-24-SO was also filed on May 10, 2024. In that grievance the Union alleges that the Employer has violated the Collective Agreement by extending part-time shift/shift schedules beyond the posted hours when assigned or detailed to full-time Mobile Station Ambassadors.

Analysis

6Rule Three of the Grievance Settlement Board’s Rules of Procedure grants the Board broad discretion to order that proceedings be consolidated, heard together, or heard consecutively, when it appears to the GSB that:

• the proceedings “have a question of law or fact in common;”

• the relief claimed arises out of the same “transaction or occurrence”, or

• for “any other reason an order ought to be made under this rule”.

7As set out in OPSEU (Kennett) and Ontario (Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services), 2014 CanLII 64819, in addition to having the discretion to consolidate matters on the grounds set out above, the GSB will consider the following factors in determining whether matters should be consolidated: (1) efficient use of resources, (2) cost savings, (3) avoiding conflicting findings of fact, (4) the orderly and efficient disposition of grievances; and (5) whether either party would be prejudiced by an order to consolidate. The same factors can be applied to determining whether grievances should be heard together or consecutively.

8The main distinction between consolidating matters and hearing matters together, is succinctly set out in Re Dresser Canada Inc. (1987) OLRB Rep. Oct. 1243 (as quoted in O.L.B.E.U. v. Ontario (Liquor Control Board), 2004 CarswellOnt 10396). In Dresser, the Board noted that where matters are consolidated, they are “fused” into one. Conversely, when matters are heard together they “retain their individual identities” but the evidence concerning all of the matters is “heard at one time” by one decision maker. Hearing matters together will be appropriate where it results in a saving of time and expense and does not result in any prejudice to either party.

9If conceived of as a Venn diagram, the three grievances before me clearly overlap in important ways. All three grievances relate, to either MSA’s hours of work or the type of work MSAs can be assigned, under the Collective Agreement. All of the grievances allege violations of Appendix B and, more specifically, Article 6 of Appendix B (amongst others).

10The grievances also overlap, at least to a certain extent, in terms of the factual basis for the grievances. In the particulars provided to the Employer, the Union has indicated that a number of the occurrences at issue in grievance 029-24-SO and grievance 031-24-SO are the same occurrences that are at issue in grievance G-024-23-SO. While, the Employer sought to minimize the number of overlapping occurrences between the grievances, I am nonetheless satisfied that there are grounds to conclude that these grievances have questions of law and fact in common.

11For the purposes of these grievances, the legal and factual overlap is significant not just because of the common issues raised by the grievances, but also because it speaks to certain efficiencies that will be gained by hearing these matters together. In particular, the Union noted that it intends to call many of the same witnesses and much of the same evidence for all three grievances. As set out above, the Union also indicated that at least some alleged occurrences will be raised in all three grievances. Having these witnesses testify once, instead of two or three times, and only calling the evidence once, will clearly result in a more efficient use of the parties’ resources, and obvious cost savings to the parties.

12I also agree with the Union that hearing these matters together will allow for a more complete evidentiary picture to emerge. That picture will, in turn, allow for a more orderly and efficient hearing process. I also agree with the Union that hearing these matters consecutively could result in a significant delay when compared to hearing these matters together.

13Finally, I am satisfied that there is no prejudice, to any party, by having the grievances heard together. Metrolinx