Grievance Settlement Board

In a discharge grievance, the Employer sought pre-hearing production of documents and further and better particulars from the Union.

The Employer's request for medical records related to the grievor's pregnancy leave was denied as it related to a collateral fact.

The Employer's request for further particulars regarding the Union's defence of condonation was partially granted.

The arbitrator held that while general assertions of condonation were sufficiently particularized, the Union must provide specific particulars if it intends to rely on specific instances of condonation.

The Grievor, a water bomber pilot, took a two-year leave of absence to work in the United States.

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, he quit his US employment and requested to return to work early.

The Employer denied the request for the current fire season because his position had been filled, there were no other vacancies, and returning him would require double-paying for the position or creating work.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that the Employer exercised its management rights reasonably in refusing the early return, as there was no available work for the Grievor.

The Union sought retroactive compensation for registered nurses who were allegedly required to be available during unpaid breaks.

Following a prior order to provide particulars, including a list of specific shifts where the grievors worked during unpaid breaks without compensation, the Union failed to provide the required details despite receiving the requested sign-in sheets from the Employer.

The Employer brought a motion to dismiss the grievance for failure to provide sufficient particulars.

The Arbitrator granted the motion and dismissed the grievance, noting that without specific details of the dates and times the grievors worked during unpaid breaks, there were insufficient particulars to determine any compensatory damages.

The employer brought a motion to dismiss a grievance regarding a five-day suspension as untimely.

The grievance was referred to arbitration 18 months after the deadline.

The union requested an extension of time limits under the collective agreement and s. 48(16) of the Ontario Labour Relations Act.

The arbitrator declined to exercise discretion to extend the time limits, finding the 18-month delay to be extreme and the reasons for the delay to be weak, as the grievor was familiar with the grievance process and had no valid reason for the delay after initial settlement discussions ended.

The grievance was dismissed.

The Union filed grievances alleging the Employer failed to reasonably accommodate a Correctional Officer with asthma and sensitivity to cigarette smoke, and breached a prior agreement regarding his General Duty Officer (GDO) assignments.

The Arbitrator found that while the Employer's enforcement of the smoking policy did not amount to a failure to accommodate during the relevant period due to a lack of actual exposures, the Employer did breach the GDO Agreement and the Human Rights Code by assigning the grievor fewer and a more limited range of duties compared to other GDOs.

The Employer's discriminatory treatment caused the grievor significant psychological harm, including PTSD.

The Arbitrator awarded $3,000 for breach of the agreement, $25,000 in general damages, and $20,000 for mental anguish.

The union filed a policy grievance alleging that provisions in the collective agreement requiring employees on Long Term Income Protection (LTIP) with 30 years of pension credit to pay their own pension contributions discriminated on the basis of age.

The arbitrator found that the provisions resulted in adverse effect discrimination, as only older employees could accumulate 30 years of pension credit.

The employer failed to justify the discrimination as a bona fide occupational requirement or under section 1 of the Charter, as the sole objective was cost savings.

The impugned provisions were struck from the collective agreement.

The parties participated in a Med-Arb process to resolve outstanding overtime grievances at various institutions within the Ministry of the Solicitor General.

Following a hearing on December 10, 2020, the Arbitrator issued a bottom-line decision without reasons, as agreed by the parties.

Several grievances were upheld with specific hours of overtime awarded, while the majority were dismissed.

Three Probation Officers filed grievances after the Employer denied their applications for the Transition Exit Initiative (TEI) prior to their retirements.

The Union argued the Employer's decision was arbitrary, discriminatory, and in bad faith, given the diminishing caseloads and the approval of other TEI requests before and after the grievors' applications.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievances, finding that the Employer retained broad discretion to determine when and whether to downsize the workforce, and that its cautious approach to staffing reductions was rational and not made in bad faith.

The union sought an adjournment sine die and an indefinite extension for the provision of documents and particulars regarding two grievances (failure to accommodate and termination for excessive absenteeism).

The employer brought a motion to dismiss the grievances due to the grievor's repeated failure to comply with Board orders to produce medical documents and her failure to attend hearings.

The arbitrator found that the grievor's medical notes were inadequate to justify the delays and that the employer was suffering significant prejudice due to the passage of time.

The arbitrator denied the union's request for an adjournment sine die and granted the employer's motion to dismiss the grievances.

The employer brought a motion to dismiss a portion of a grievance alleging that 'survey stops' assigned to Transport Enforcement Officers violated the Highway Traffic Act and the Charter, arguing the Grievance Settlement Board lacked jurisdiction.

The union argued that employees cannot be required to perform unlawful work assignments and that the Board has jurisdiction to determine the legality of the assignment.

The Arbitrator found that the Board has jurisdiction to adjudicate the allegation provided the state of the law is such that it is clear and unambiguous that the employer's directions would require the officers to perform functions that would result in a violation of the HTA or the Charter.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued an interim decision on consent directing the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH) to provide all documents and records related to the grievor to the union's counsel.

The union was then directed to produce all arguably relevant documents to the employer without delay, advising of any redactions.

The employer brought a motion to dismiss the grievor's grievances for abuse of process and failure to comply with interim orders.

The grievor had repeatedly refused to comply with the arbitrator's directions to attend at the union's office with her counsel to be cross-examined via teleconference, citing medical reasons but failing to provide adequate medical documentation to support her refusal.

The arbitrator found that the grievor's conduct was intentional, deliberate, and manipulative, demonstrating a total unwillingness to accept the arbitrator's authority.

The motion was granted and the grievances were dismissed for abuse of process.

The Union filed grievances claiming the Employer violated the collective agreement regarding meal allowance and overtime provisions for employees at Maplehurst Correctional Centre.

The parties agreed to proceed on the single issue of whether employees assigned to escort duty who work through their unpaid meal break are entitled to straight time or overtime pay.

The Arbitrator found that employees are entitled to the overtime rate for the normally unpaid meal break time, in addition to the one-hour compensation for the missed meal break, as any time worked over scheduled hours is overtime.

The grievances were granted and the Employer was directed to pay the applicable overtime rate.

The employer sought disclosure of the grievor's medical records relating to facial hair and night-shift accommodations.

The arbitrator ordered the grievor to execute releases for clinical notes, reports, and correspondence from January 2018 to December 2020.

The disclosure was subject to conditions, including prior review by union counsel for redaction of irrelevant information and strict limits on the employer's distribution of the documents.

In a grievance arising from prolonged disability leave and failed return-to-work efforts, the union alleged harassment and a breach of the employer’s duty to accommodate a worker with PTSD who was medically unable to work within the employing agency.

The arbitrator held the employer was entitled to seek clarification of early medical information, but after receiving a clear medical report it unreasonably persisted in exploring accommodation within the same agency and delayed entry into the health reassignment process for many months.

The harassment allegation failed because the impugned conduct, though misguided and discriminatory in part, did not objectively constitute vexatious or abusive workplace conduct.

The grievance was allowed in part, with declarations of discrimination and an award of $20,000 for injury to dignity, feelings and self respect, but no lost wages or immediate placement order.

The union grieved the cancellation of a fixed-term correctional officer's scheduled shift, arguing it breached a local agreement requiring fair and equitable distribution of hours.

The shift was cancelled after the training session for the regular officer the grievor was backfilling was cancelled.

The grievor was later offered a shift on the same day but failed to respond.

Following an expedited mediation-arbitration process, the grievance was denied without reasons or precedent.

The Union sought production of the Grievor's local file in the context of a grievance arbitration.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the Employer to produce the file to the Union by a specified date.

The Grievor, a Correctional Officer, requested a day of compassionate leave after his vehicle was severely vandalized the night before his scheduled 12-hour shift.

The Employer denied the request, arguing the Grievor should have arranged a shift exchange or taken public transit.

The Arbitrator found the Employer breached the collective agreement by failing to genuinely exercise its discretion, as it rigidly applied a requirement for an alternate plan without considering the late hour and specific circumstances.

The grievance was upheld and the Employer was directed to grant the compassionate leave day.

The grievor, a Correctional Officer, received a Letter of Reprimand for engaging in disrespectful and unprofessional conduct, including yelling and using profanities, towards a Sergeant after receiving a parking ticket.

The union grieved the discipline.

The arbitrator found that the grievor was visibly upset and behaved unprofessionally in the workplace.

The grievance was dismissed, and the Letter of Reprimand was upheld as being issued with just cause.

The grievor, a fixed-term correctional officer, requested three days of paid compassionate leave under Article 49 of the collective agreement to support his spouse during a prolonged labour and childbirth.

The Employer denied the paid leave, granting unpaid leave instead, on the basis that childbirth is an anticipated life event for which employees should plan.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the Employer reasonably exercised its discretion under Article 49, which provides that the Employer 'may' grant such leave, and that the grievor was not entitled to paid compassionate leave as of right for a normal life event.