Grievance Settlement Board

The union grieved the handling of the grievor's application for enhanced benefits under the Transition Exit Initiative, alleging the grievor was bullied into accepting an exit date that was not mutually agreeable.

As a preliminary matter, the arbitrator was asked to determine whether the grievor and his manager had reached a pre-arranged, mutually agreeable exit date.

The arbitrator found that the manager had not agreed to the grievor's preferred exit date and that the grievor's belief to the contrary was mistaken.

The arbitrator concluded there was no pre-arranged agreement regarding the exit date and remitted the matter back to the parties.

The union filed a policy grievance regarding the employer's mandatory vaccination and vaccination disclosure announcements.

The parties appeared before the arbitrator to set a litigation schedule.

The employer raised a preliminary issue regarding the timeliness of the referral to arbitration, which will be argued based on an agreed statement of facts.

The arbitrator also set deadlines for the production of documents and the exchange of particulars, and scheduled a further conference call to determine next steps.

The union alleged that the employer breached a Memorandum of Settlement by holding a meeting with the grievor regarding a matter that was the subject of a fact-finding meeting prior to the settlement.

The settlement resolved all outstanding disputes to date.

The arbitrator found no breach of the settlement, noting that the post-settlement meeting was used to advise the grievor of expectations and did not result in discipline.

The grievance was dismissed.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of the grievor alleging wrongful termination.

A hearing was scheduled by videoconference, but the grievor failed to attend.

Union counsel indicated they had been unable to reach the grievor despite multiple attempts.

The arbitrator adjourned the hearing and directed the grievor to provide a reason for her non-attendance by a specified date, failing which the grievance may be dismissed.

Two Fixed Term Correctional Officers filed grievances claiming they were delayed in rolling over to classified status due to the Employer's incorrect interpretation of eligibility criteria in an August 2020 Expression of Interest.

The delay was caused by a separate Union grievance that had to be litigated to resolve the eligibility issue.

The Arbitrator dismissed the grievances, finding that the delay was the inevitable result of the litigation process and that the Employer had not acted in bad faith in its original assessment.

The employer brought preliminary motions to dismiss two grievances for failing to disclose a prima facie case and to strike certain particulars in a consolidated grievance arbitration.

The arbitrator granted the motion to dismiss the two grievances, finding that the employer's request to waive stage 2 grievance meetings and its issuance of a letter of expectation to a co-worker did not, even if true, constitute a violation of the grievor's rights.

The arbitrator dismissed the employer's motion to strike particulars relating to a co-worker's workplace harassment complaint, finding them arguably relevant to the grievor's claim of differential treatment, and ordered production of the file.

The arbitrator partially granted the motion to strike other particulars for vagueness.

In an expedited mediation-arbitration process, the union grieved a letter of counsel and a written reprimand issued to the grievor, and requested a transfer to a different store.

The arbitrator found the employer's offer to reduce the sunset clause on the discipline and to transfer the grievor to a closer store upon a vacancy within three years to be fair and reasonable.

The employer was directed to implement these terms and the grievances were terminated.

The grievor alleged that the Employer violated the Collective Agreement by threatening, bullying, and treating him unfairly, and sought payment for two days of sick time.

The matter proceeded via an expedited Mediation-Arbitration process.

The arbitrator found no violation of the collective agreement or applicable legislation and dismissed the grievance.

At a hearing convened for two grievances relating to job competitions and alleged discrimination, the parties agreed to use the day for mediation.

However, mediation was unlikely to be productive due to a lack of meaningful exchange of particulars or documents.

The Arbitrator ordered both parties to provide full written particulars of material facts and produce relevant documents according to a set timetable, and directed the employer to provide notice of any preliminary motions or objections.

The union filed a grievance regarding a scheduling issue on behalf of the grievor.

The parties participated in an expedited mediation-arbitration process under the collective agreement.

During mediation, the employer offered to pay the grievor 18.75 hours minus statutory deductions.

The arbitrator found this offer fair and reasonable, directed the employer to pay the amount, and terminated the grievance.

The Union requested an adjournment of the arbitration hearing due to the grievor's illness and a recent bereavement.

The Employer consented to the adjournment on the condition that the grievor provide satisfactory medical proof of illness and particulars of the grievance claims, which had been outstanding for over a year.

The Arbitrator granted the adjournment on these terms, ordering that the grievance would be dismissed if the required documentation was not provided by the specified deadline.

The employer sought an order for particulars regarding the grievor's allegations of harassment and discrimination, after previous requests were not satisfied.

The arbitrator granted the motion, ordering the union to provide full particulars by January 4, 2022, failing which the grievances may be dismissed.

The grievor travelled to Quebec for a ski vacation during a provincial lockdown and was required by the employer to quarantine for 14 days unpaid upon return.

The union grieved the unpaid leave.

Through an expedited mediation-arbitration process, the arbitrator directed the employer to pay the grievor five days sick pay and five days vacation pay, finding this to be a fair and reasonable resolution.

The union filed two grievances on behalf of the grievor regarding missed overtime and a three-day suspension.

The grievances were filed approximately a year after the events in question.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the grievances were untimely.

The arbitrator agreed, noting that the collective agreement prescribes strict time limits in days and provides that grievances not processed within the prescribed time are deemed withdrawn.

The grievances were terminated.

The union filed a grievance claiming reimbursement for the cost of clear plastic bags purchased by the grievors to transport personal items into secure areas of the Roy McMurtry Youth Centre.

The parties agreed to proceed on the basis of representations and requested a decision without reasons.

The arbitrator denied the grievance.

In a grievance arbitration concerning allegations of workplace harassment and bullying, the arbitrator found that the issues had not yet been properly crystallized.

The arbitrator issued an interim order directing the union to provide particulars of the allegations, a list of requested productions, and the nature of the remedies sought by April 1, 2022.

The employer was ordered to provide its reply, productions, and any preliminary objections by April 29, 2022, with the hearing to be scheduled for continuation in mid-2022.

The Union filed several grievances regarding working conditions at the Oshawa Central Ambulance Communication Centre.

During the intervening period, staffing changes occurred, including the hiring of additional staff.

The arbitrator determined that due to these material changes, there was no labour relations purpose to hearing the grievances of the representative grievor.

The grievances were dismissed without a decision on their merits.

The union filed a job competition grievance on behalf of the grievor, arguing she should have been awarded a Welfare Field Worker 2 position instead of the incumbent based on her greater seniority.

The collective agreement provided that seniority governs where candidates are relatively equal in qualifications and ability.

The employer used a scoring system where the grievor scored 66 and the incumbent scored 92.

The arbitrator found that the gap between the grievor's score and the score required to establish relative equality was too large to overcome.

The grievance was dismissed.

The union filed a grievance claiming an overtime premium of 50% for hours worked by the grievor on September 13, 2020.

The parties agreed to proceed on the basis of representations and submissions and requested a decision without reasons.

The arbitrator allowed the grievance and directed the employer to pay the overtime premium.

The Union filed a policy grievance regarding the interpretation of the supplementary health benefits provision in the collective agreement, specifically whether it covers the charges of a psychologist who supervises a psychotherapist providing direct treatment to an employee.

The Employer argued that only direct, face-to-face services provided by a psychologist or social worker were covered.

The Arbitrator allowed the grievance, finding no ambiguity in the collective agreement's broad reference to 'charges for the services of a psychologist'.

The Arbitrator held that supervision is a recognized service within a psychologist's scope of practice that provides direct benefit to the client, and therefore falls within the covered services under the collective agreement.