Grievance Settlement Board

The union filed a grievance alleging the employer violated the collective agreement during a 2021 job posting for a Product Consultant position.

The employer conceded that the grievor was improperly screened out and that the process did not comply with the collective agreement.

The arbitrator declared that the employer violated Article 22.5(a) of the collective agreement and reminded the employer of its obligations regarding the job competition process.

The Union grieved the Employer's decision to deny the Grievor a promotion to a permanent full-time Warehouse Worker 3 position.

The collective agreement contained a threshold ability clause where seniority governed provided the applicant was qualified.

The Employer bypassed the Grievor, who was the senior applicant, relying on his recent disciplinary record and performance appraisals which indicated unsatisfactory work productivity.

The Arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that the Employer's reliance on the Grievor's disciplinary record and productivity metrics to determine he lacked the present ability and qualifications for the promotion was reasonable.

The Union alleged the Employer breached a Memorandum of Settlement (MOS) requiring it to notify the Union of meetings with employees under Article 30 of the collective agreement.

The Employer argued it could not comply with the MOS because a prior Grievance Settlement Board decision held that the Union was not entitled to such information unless the employee requested representation.

The Arbitrator found the Employer was in an untenable position due to the prior decision, declared the MOS null and void, and directed that the original grievance remain outstanding.

The union filed a grievance alleging that the grievor was improperly denied overtime.

The parties participated in an expedited mediation-arbitration process.

The arbitrator found no breach of the collective agreement and dismissed the grievance without reasons, in accordance with the negotiated protocol.

The union filed a grievance alleging that the grievor's privacy rights were breached.

The matter proceeded through the expedited mediation-arbitration process.

The arbitrator found a breach of the collective agreement and awarded the grievor $250.00 in damages.

The union brought a motion arguing that the grievor's disciplinary termination was void ab initio because the employer violated his right to union representation under article 30.1 of the collective agreement during a meeting on March 12, 2022.

The grievor alleged that a Staff Sergeant confronted him with photographs of falsified COVID-19 test results and obtained an admission of guilt without offering union representation.

The employer denied that such a meeting occurred, asserting the Staff Sergeant only requested an Occurrence Report.

The Arbitrator preferred the employer's evidence, finding inconsistencies in the grievor's account and concluding that the alleged meeting did not take place.

The motion was dismissed, and the grievance was scheduled to proceed on its merits.

The union brought four grievances to an expedited mediation-arbitration process under the collective agreement.

The grievances concerned a job posting, a claim for reimbursement of sick time, and a one-day disciplinary suspension.

The arbitrator reduced the one-day suspension to a written reprimand with compensation for the lost day's pay, ordered the employer to reimburse the grievor for eight sick days, and dismissed the grievance regarding the job posting.

The parties reconvened to address monetary compensation issues arising from a previous arbitration award that upheld three grievances, including one from the Sudbury Jail.

Despite attempts over three years to identify individual claims for compensation from the Sudbury Jail, no such claims were found.

To ensure finality, the arbitrator dismissed the Sudbury Jail grievance.

The Union requested pre-hearing disclosure of documents relating to individual exceptions to the Employer's mandatory vaccination policy requested under the grounds of creed or disability.

The parties agreed the documents were arguably relevant but contained private and sensitive information.

The arbitrator exercised authority under section 48(1) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 to order the Employer to disclose the requested documents, subject to strict confidentiality conditions restricting their use and dissemination.

The union grieved a seven-day suspension imposed on a court clerk for leaving his courtroom assignment without authorization and engaging in conduct contrary to the Respectful Workplace Policy.

The grievor left the courtroom to attend to a personal matter after falsely telling the judge he would be replaced, and subsequently confronted his supervisor in an aggressive and disrespectful manner.

The arbitrator found that the employer established just cause for discipline, as the grievor's actions constituted insubordination and violated the workplace policy.

Given the grievor's failure to take responsibility and his untruthfulness, the arbitrator declined to mitigate the penalty and dismissed the grievance.

The arbitrator issued procedural orders in a grievance arbitration concerning an alleged failure to accommodate.

The orders directed the employer to provide a medical consent form for the grievor to sign, an employment confirmation letter, and the grievor's human resources file.

The grievor was ordered to sign and distribute the medical consent form to her medical providers, failing which the grievances would be withdrawn.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of the grievor.

A video conference hearing was scheduled, but the grievor failed to attend or provide reasons for her absence, despite being contacted by the union representative.

The arbitrator adjourned the hearing and directed the grievor to provide reasons for her non-attendance within 30 days, failing which the grievance may be dismissed without further notice.

The Union filed grievances against the Employer.

In a previous case conference, the arbitrator ordered the Union to provide particulars regarding the allegation that the Employer failed to accommodate the grievor's alleged disability.

The Union failed to provide the particulars because the grievor failed to communicate with the Union.

Consequently, the arbitrator dismissed all grievances and defences relating to the failure to accommodate.

The remaining matters were scheduled to proceed, with a warning that failure by the grievor to attend could result in the dismissal of the remaining grievances.

During a hearing on an employer's preliminary motion to dismiss 31 consolidated grievances, the parties agreed to consolidate five additional newly discovered grievances.

The employer objected to the union providing particulars for the new grievances, arguing it was too late and prejudicial as the employer had already commenced its submissions on the motion.

The Arbitrator held that the union was entitled to provide particulars for the new grievances, as the employer's prior submissions related only to the original grievances and the employer would not be prejudiced.

The union was ordered to provide the particulars by a specified date.

The Employer brought a motion to adjourn the hearing scheduled for October 27, 2023, citing a recent change in counsel, incomplete production of documents, and the medical unavailability and anxiety of its first witness.

The Union opposed the adjournment, arguing it would cause undue delay and negatively impact the grievor's mental health.

The Arbitrator granted the adjournment, finding that the lack of full production and the specific circumstances of the witness justified the delay, and ordered a schedule for document production and the drafting of an Agreed Statement of Facts.

The employer brought a motion to dismiss eight grievances alleging racial and family status discrimination and anti-union animus, arguing the particulars failed to establish a prima facie case.

The arbitrator applied the test for a prima facie case of discrimination, finding that relatively little affirmative evidence is required at this stage.

The arbitrator concluded that the particulars for seven of the grievances were capable of supporting the alleged violations if proven true.

One grievance relating to general workload issues was dismissed as it did not fit the union's theory of the case.

The employer's alternative motion to strike certain particulars was dismissed as premature.

The Union filed multiple grievances alleging that the Employer violated the collective agreement by failing to compensate employees for lost overtime and holiday pay opportunities while they were required to self-isolate due to COVID-19.

The Union also claimed entitlement to pandemic-related monetary payments, including Short-Term Sickness Plan top-ups and Coronavirus Leave Paid.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievances, finding no clear language in the collective agreement requiring payment for overtime or holiday premiums when employees could not attend work.

The Board also held it lacked jurisdiction to review the Employer's administration of the Coronavirus Leave Paid program, as it was established outside the collective agreement.

The grievor, a correctional officer, completed an online mental health training program at work.

The employer had offered 12 hours of overtime compensation for employees who completed the program at home on a non-workday.

The grievor claimed she completed the program a second time at home on her smartphone and sought the overtime compensation.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that the grievor had already completed the course at work and was paid for doing so, and there was no basis for her to receive additional compensation for completing it a second time.

The union filed a grievance alleging the employer improperly denied the grievor sick pay for a three-day absence and requested a medical certificate as a reprisal following an unsuccessful work refusal.

The arbitrator found that the employer had contemporaneously requested a medical note when the grievor left work sick.

The grievor failed to provide an acceptable medical certificate, as the note provided was obtained 15 days later from an emergency department where he had not been seen during his absence.

The grievance was dismissed.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued a procedural decision clarifying the order of proceedings for multiple grievances filed by the union.

The Board confirmed that the 2013 and subsequent grievances would not be heard together with the 2021 and 2022 grievances.

For the older matters, the union will proceed first on issues where it bears the onus, followed by the employer's response and evidence on disciplinary matters where the employer bears the onus, subject to normal rules regarding reply evidence.