Grievance Settlement Board

The Union requested pre-hearing disclosure of documents relating to the Employer's allegations of misconduct by the grievor.

The Employer objected on the basis of privacy and confidentiality.

The Arbitrator ordered the Employer to disclose the Investigation Report and non-privileged materials, subject to strict confidentiality conditions, including restrictions on copying and sharing the documents.

The union requested disclosure of documents and recordings associated with two 911 calls.

The parties agreed the third-party information was relevant.

The arbitrator ordered the production of the recordings and documents subject to strict confidentiality conditions, including that they not be disseminated outside the arbitration process and that copies be returned or destroyed at the conclusion of the case.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of the grievor.

The grievor failed to attend the initial hearing and a subsequent hearing.

The arbitrator previously ordered that if the grievor failed to attend and failed to provide reasons, the grievance would be dismissed.

The grievor failed to attend the rescheduled hearing and failed to provide reasons as directed.

The employer brought a motion to dismiss the grievance.

The arbitrator granted the motion and dismissed the grievance due to the grievor's repeated non-attendance and failure to comply with the arbitrator's directions.

The Employer brought a motion challenging the timeliness of a grievance filed by the Union regarding a 20-day suspension of a correctional officer.

The grievance was filed more than 16 months after the deadline.

The Union requested an extension of time under section 48(16) of the Labour Relations Act.

The arbitrator applied the Schiff factors and found that the delay was extreme, the grievor was solely responsible for abandoning the initial grievance, and the Employer would suffer prejudice due to faded memories.

The arbitrator declined to exercise discretion to extend the time limits and dismissed the grievance.

The arbitrator issued case management directions for three grievances (two individual, one group) referred under the Central Collective Agreement.

The directions set timelines for providing particulars, scheduling a one-day hearing, and limiting the scope and duration of oral evidence regarding whether other employees were permitted to conduct COVID-19 rapid tests at the workplace.

The grievor, a Correctional Officer, filed a grievance alleging that the employer breached the collective agreement and engaged in harassment and bullying during an Employee Attendance Support Program meeting by advising her that short-term sick benefits might not be approved without updated medical information.

The parties referred the grievance to mediation/arbitration.

The arbitrator found no evidence to support a breach of the collective agreement or other pertinent legislation or policies.

The grievance was denied.

The grievor failed to attend the scheduled virtual grievance arbitration hearing.

Union counsel advised they could not proceed without the grievor, necessitating an adjournment.

The arbitrator ordered the grievor to provide reasons for his non-attendance by a specified date, failing which the grievance may be dismissed.

If reasons are provided, the employer may bring a motion to dismiss based on the failure to attend.

The Employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss three individual grievances concerning the calculation of severance pay for casual employees.

The Employer argued that the Union was estopped from pursuing these grievances because it had previously withdrawn a policy grievance on the identical issue after receiving the Employer's particulars and productions, and had subsequently withdrawn bargaining proposals seeking the same benefit.

The Arbitrator agreed, finding that the withdrawal of the policy grievance in these circumstances, without stating it was 'without prejudice', constituted a representation that the Union accepted the Employer's interpretation of the collective agreement.

The motion was granted and the grievances were dismissed.

The parties requested a procedural order to consolidate several grievances and establish a schedule for the production of particulars and future hearings.

The Arbitrator issued a consent order consolidating three grievances, setting a deadline for the union to provide detailed particulars, and scheduling future dates to address unreferred grievances and preliminary issues.

During a multi-day grievance arbitration held via videoconference, the grievor experienced repeated technical difficulties that prevented her from testifying.

The employer sought an order requiring the grievor to attend future hearing dates from a designated physical location with reliable internet.

The arbitrator granted the request, ordering the grievor to attend future scheduled hearing dates at one of two specified employer office locations where a private boardroom and internet connectivity would be provided.

The grievor failed to attend the scheduled grievance arbitration hearing.

The employer moved to dismiss the grievance.

The arbitrator ordered the grievor to provide reasons and documentary evidence for his absence by a specified date, failing which the grievance would be deemed dismissed.

The employer was given a deadline to respond to any reasons provided.

The parties agreed to a consent order adjourning two grievances filed by the grievor.

The employer consented to the adjournment on the condition that the overtime grievances be scheduled together and proceed through the mediation/arbitration procedure.

The employer reserved the right to bring preliminary objections, and the union agreed to provide particulars in advance of the new hearing date.

The Union requested pre-hearing disclosure of an Investigation Report and related materials concerning allegations of misconduct by the grievor.

The Employer resisted, citing the sensitive and confidential nature of the documents involving current and former employees.

The Arbitrator exercised her authority under section 48(12) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 to order the Employer to produce the requested documents, subject to strict confidentiality conditions restricting their use, distribution, and retention to the arbitration preparation process.

The Union brought a motion to hear three grievances together, while the Employer brought motions to dismiss one grievance for untimely referral and to strike certain particulars.

The grievances related to the Employer's alleged failure to accommodate the grievor's disability, denial of short-term sick pay, and subsequent disciplinary suspensions.

The Arbitrator granted the Union's motion to hear the grievances together, finding a sufficient factual and legal nexus.

The Arbitrator dismissed the Employer's motion regarding the untimely referral, exercising discretion to extend the time limit due to the grievor's innocent mistake and lack of prejudice.

The Arbitrator granted the Employer's motion to strike particulars relating to previously settled grievances, but refused to strike particulars regarding accommodation efforts, finding them relevant to establishing a pattern of conduct.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of a warehouse worker who was not paid for a shift he missed.

The worker claimed he was denied entry due to COVID-19 screening protocols after his son had a fever, despite a negative test.

The employer maintained the worker called in to say he was taking his son for a test and would not be at work.

The arbitrator preferred the employer's version of events based on contemporaneous emails.

Because the worker was absent and had no remaining sick credits, the employer's decision not to pay him did not violate the collective agreement.

The grievance was dismissed.

The Union sought document production in a grievance arbitration.

On consent, the Arbitrator ordered the Employer to make its best efforts to provide all arguably relevant documents created between January 1, 2019, and January 25, 2022, relating to specific curriculum training, as well as emails and documents in the possession of a retired employee.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to strike particulars and dismiss a grievance challenging a Personal Development Plan (PDP) completed by an Acting Supervisor.

The arbitrator dismissed the PDP grievance, finding that performance appraisals are not disciplinary and therefore not subject to arbitral review for fairness, and that the acting supervisor had the authority to conduct the appraisal.

The arbitrator also struck particulars alleging gender bias in a promotion, as promotions to managerial positions are outside the scope of the collective agreement and the allegations constituted an unwarranted expansion of the grievance.

In a separate harassment grievance, the arbitrator struck particulars relating to an independent medical examination as an expansion of the grievance, but permitted particulars relating to medical accommodation.

At the first scheduled date of a grievance arbitration, the employer brought a motion to commence the hearing immediately.

The union opposed the motion, relying on the established practice at the Grievance Settlement Board to use the first date for mediation, case management, and preliminary issues before adjourning.

The arbitrator dismissed the employer's motion, finding that while the employer's desire for efficiency was justifiable, the established practice ought to prevail because the employer had not clearly put the union on notice in advance of its intention to move to commence the hearing.

In a grievance arbitration between the Amalgamated Transit Union and Metrolinx, the parties agreed to make best efforts to provide mutual disclosure and particulars by a specified date.

The union agreed to provide the grievor's medical and benefits records, as well as particulars of accommodations not provided.

The employer agreed to provide documents related to its efforts to accommodate the grievor's medical conditions.

The hearing was adjourned to dates to be arranged.

During an arbitration hearing, the employer objected to the admission of certain evidence contained in will-say statements disclosed by the union.

The arbitrator excluded portions of the grievor's will-say that related to allegations previously adjudicated by the board, finding that admitting them would allow relitigation of decided issues.

The arbitrator also excluded portions of will-say statements from two other employees that described their own experiences, as those experiences were not part of the grievance's particulars and would require the board to make findings of discrimination against employees who had not filed grievances.

Hearsay evidence within the admitted portions was allowed subject to weight.