Grievance Settlement Board

The Employer brought a motion to strike portions of the Union's Statement of Particulars in a grievance arbitration, arguing that allegations dating back to 2011 violated the Board's 'three-year rule'.

The Union argued the rule breached natural justice or, alternatively, that exceptions should apply due to the grievor's fear of reprisal.

The Arbitrator upheld the validity of the three-year rule, finding it consistent with natural justice and the expedited arbitration process.

The Arbitrator struck the particulars relating to the alleged 2011 co-worker prank and subsequent ostracization due to the extreme delay and prejudice to the Employer.

However, the Arbitrator allowed evidence regarding the supervisor's 2011 response to the prank, finding it relevant to establishing the origins of the alleged recent pattern of harassment.

The union grieved a five-day suspension imposed on the grievor for an accident that occurred while operating equipment in the warehouse.

The parties participated in an expedited mediation-arbitration process.

After reviewing video surveillance of the incident and speaking with the parties, the arbitrator concluded that the suspension was for just cause.

The grievance was dismissed.

During a case management meeting, the Employer refused to participate if a specific Union representative, who was facing criminal charges related to the workplace, was present.

The arbitrator declined to order the representative to leave the virtual meeting, noting there was no basis to do so.

The arbitrator then directed the parties to agree on a timeline for addressing outstanding production issues and an Agreed Statement of Fact, which was subsequently issued as an order.

Following a May 2025 award allowing a grievance and ordering the Employer to pay TEI benefits to the grievor, an ongoing dispute arose regarding the payment of those benefits.

Given the considerable delay, the Arbitrator directed the Employer to provide a complete breakdown of its calculation of the payment obligations and an accounting of what has and has not been paid by March 31, 2026.

The Arbitrator remained seized of the matter.

The union filed a grievance alleging the grievor was not paid correctly between April and September 2024.

On consent of the parties, the arbitrator ordered the production of the grievor's pay stubs for the period of April 10 to September 30, 2024.

The documents are to be treated as strictly confidential and used only for the purposes of the litigation.

The Union filed four grievances alleging the Employer breached the collective agreement and the Labour Relations Act during a labour dispute over the renewal of a Compressed Work Week Agreement.

The Union alleged the Employer acted in bad faith during negotiations, failed to provide 96 hours' notice of shift changes, breached the Provincial Overtime Protocol, created dangerous working conditions, targeted Union officials, and improperly required medical certificates for all sick absences.

The arbitrator dismissed the bad faith, notice, dangerous conditions, and anti-union animus claims.

The arbitrator allowed the grievance regarding the Provincial Overtime Protocol, issuing a declaration, and allowed the grievance regarding the blanket medical certificate requirement, ordering compensation for affected employees.

The Union referred a group grievance relating to vacancies in the probation and parole officer position in the Peterborough office.

Following unsuccessful mediation efforts, the Arbitrator issued procedural directions to govern the exchange of particulars, documents, and potential consolidation of related grievances, setting a timetable leading up to a hearing on the merits.

The parties convened for a grievance arbitration regarding a claim for unpaid sick time.

Following an unsuccessful mediation, the arbitrator issued procedural directions ordering the union to provide additional particulars and production of all arguably relevant material, and directing the employer to respond and raise any preliminary objections.

During mediation of a harassment and discrimination grievance, counsel for the union accepted a settlement proposal from the employer via email.

The grievors subsequently refused to sign the Minutes of Settlement and attempted to renegotiate the terms.

The employer and the union both requested an order finding a binding agreement.

The arbitrator held that the email exchange between counsel created a clear, unambiguous, and binding settlement agreement, which could not be undone by the grievors' subsequent refusal to sign.

The grievors, who rolled over from fixed-term to permanent full-time positions in December 2016, filed grievances seeking to have their Continuous Service Dates (CSDs) recalculated retroactively to include weeks where less than 40 hours were worked.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievances, noting that prior to 2018, CSD calculations required 40 straight-time hours per week.

Although the collective agreement was amended in 2018 to include all straight-time hours for fixed-term staff, the parties had previously agreed this change was not retroactive.

Since the grievors rolled over in 2016, there was no basis to apply the 2018 formula to them.

The Grievance Settlement Board heard submissions from the parties regarding a grievance.

The Arbitrator directed the employer to pay the grievor $275.00 as damages without deduction, remaining seized with respect to implementation.

The Employer brought a motion to strike paragraphs from the Union's statement of particulars in a harassment grievance, seeking to limit evidence to the three years prior to the filing of the grievance.

The Arbitrator applied the Board's three-year rule, finding no unique or exceptional circumstances to justify a departure.

The motion was granted, striking the impugned paragraphs and limiting the evidence to events within three years of the grievance, subject to the admission of basic background facts.

In a group grievance alleging unreasonable workload for Case Managers, both the Union and the Employer sought pre-hearing production of documents and particulars.

The Arbitrator ordered the Employer to produce data on medical leaves, performance improvement plans, and workforce analysis from 2014 and 2018-2024, finding them arguably relevant to the Union's claims.

The Union was ordered to produce redacted individual workload survey results and to provide particulars explaining its assertion that 2014 workload levels were safe compared to later years.

The Employer's request for grievors' medical records was denied as premature.

The Association filed a grievance alleging that the Employer and Canada Life imposed an unreasonable precondition on members receiving negotiated health benefits by requiring blanket consent to obtain personal health information.

The Employer raised a preliminary objection to the Board's jurisdiction over Canada Life's administration of the provision.

The Arbitrator issued procedural directions, ordering the exchange of will-say statements and documentary production prior to the continuation of the hearing on the preliminary issue.

The grievor failed to attend a scheduled videoconference hearing before the Grievance Settlement Board.

The Union made repeated unsuccessful efforts to contact the grievor.

The Arbitrator adjourned the hearing and directed the grievor to provide detailed reasons for his non-attendance by a specified date, failing which the grievance may be dismissed without further notice.

The union filed a grievance alleging the employer breached the Extended Hours Memorandum of Agreement by failing to evenly distribute flex days, requiring employees to attend the workplace, and suspending flex work arrangements.

The parties engaged in mediation and agreed to a case management schedule for document production and the preparation of an Agreed Statement of Facts.

The arbitrator issued a consent order setting out the schedule and scheduling continuation dates.

The union requested a further extension of time to file medical information explaining the grievor's failure to attend a scheduled hearing.

The employer opposed the extension.

The arbitrator granted the extension, finding that the potential harm to the grievor of a precipitous deemed dismissal outweighed the negative impact of delay on the employer, as the extension was without prejudice to the employer's position.

The time to file supporting documentation was extended to March 30, 2026.

The parties engaged in an expedited arbitration process regarding implementation issues arising from a 2012 memorandum of settlement.

The employer sought repayment of amounts it alleged the grievor owed due to these implementation issues, as set out in a July 2024 letter.

The arbitrator determined that the employer could not pursue the alleged overpayment.

The grievor, a Correctional Officer, filed a grievance claiming the Employer breached the collective agreement by failing to include his past seasonal service with another ministry in the calculation of his Continuous Service Date.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that the exact same issues had been raised and fully determined in a prior grievance decision involving the same grievor.

The Union filed a grievance seeking damages for scheduled wage increases, statutory holidays, and personal loss/mental health caused by a suspension pending investigation.

The Arbitrator dismissed the grievance without detailed written reasons, finding that the damages sought would not be awarded regardless of the merits.

The claim for wage increases was barred by res judicata due to a prior decision determining the grievor's anniversary date.

The claim for statutory holidays was speculative, and damages for mental health were not available as the suspension was inherent to the grievor's position under the Public Service of Ontario Act.