Grievance Settlement Board

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.

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 parties appeared before the Grievance Settlement Board regarding a dispute over the installation and use of security cameras in correctional facility control modules, following a prior 2021 decision.

The Union sought to have cameras moved or their fields of vision altered, and indicated its intention to file a fresh grievance on the issue.

On consent of the parties, the Arbitrator adjourned the proceedings sine die to allow for the processing and consolidation of the new grievance.

In an ongoing arbitration regarding the reasonableness of the Employer's Fitness for Duty Policy following the legalization of cannabis, the Union sought production of a Senior Management Team briefing note and related email exchanges.

The Employer claimed these documents were exempt from disclosure based on solicitor-client privilege.

The Arbitrator found that the briefing note, co-authored by in-house legal counsel, and the email exchanges, which sought legal advice regarding a potential ban on recreational cannabis use, were protected by solicitor-client privilege.

The Arbitrator also rejected the Union's argument that the Employer had waived privilege by failing to identify the documents earlier in the proceedings.

The documents were ordered not to be produced.

The employer brought a motion for production of documents following up on a previous order.

The arbitrator ordered the grievor to provide consents for access to his Health & Wellness file, clinical notes, prescription records, EI/CPP information, and particulars regarding his disability, accommodation, training, and mitigation of damages.

The union grieved a one-day suspension imposed on a correctional officer for failing to wear a mandated surgical mask and coming within six feet of other staff during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The arbitrator found the employer proved the misconduct via CCTV footage showing the grievor eating without a mask in close proximity to colleagues.

Given the serious health and safety risks and the grievor's lack of remorse, the arbitrator upheld the one-day suspension as an appropriate penalty and dismissed the grievance.

The union requested an adjournment of the grievance arbitration pending the outcome of a related complaint filed by the grievor at the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO).

The union argued that the relationship between it and the grievor was broken, making it impossible to effectively represent him.

The arbitrator denied the adjournment, noting that the arbitration was well-advanced compared to the HRTO proceedings and that it is not the Board's function to monitor or repair relations between a union and its members.

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 employer raised a preliminary objection regarding the scope of evidence the union could adduce concerning a previously settled grievance.

The settlement allowed the grievor to speak to the settled grievance for background purposes only.

The arbitrator held that while the union could not relitigate the underlying facts or establish a course of conduct reaching back to the settled grievance, the grievor could refer to the facts for context.

The union's particulars and investigation reports were admitted to explain how the active grievances referenced the settled incidents, but no findings of fact would be made regarding the settled grievance.

The grievor failed to attend his termination grievance hearing and did not provide notice of his absence.

The employer requested that the grievance be dismissed.

The arbitrator adjourned the hearing and ordered the grievor to provide an explanation and supporting documentation for his non-attendance by a specified date.

If the grievor fails to respond within the time allowed, the grievance will be dismissed.

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.