Grievance Settlement Board

The grievor was scheduled to work night shifts but was required to attend a Grievance Settlement Board hearing during the day.

The employer switched one of his night shifts for a day shift to allow him to attend the hearing, resulting in the grievor not having two consecutive days off in that calendar week.

The union grieved this as a breach of the collective agreement.

In an expedited mediation-arbitration, the arbitrator dismissed the grievance, stating that no remedy would be granted even if a breach had occurred.

The Union brought a motion for a declaration that discipline imposed on the grievor, a Correctional Officer, was void ab initio because the Employer breached his representation rights under Article 30.1 of the Collective Agreement.

The Employer had asked the grievor for an Occurrence Report during a meeting without providing advance notice of his right to union representation.

The Arbitrator found that the meeting was part of an investigation into matters that could result in disciplinary action, and the Employer's failure to provide advance notice violated Article 30.1.

However, applying recent jurisprudence, the Arbitrator held that the discipline was voidable rather than void ab initio, and reserved the decision on remedy until the merits of the Employer's claim that discipline was warranted could be heard.

The Employer brought a preliminary motion to strike paragraphs 22-24 of the Union's particulars, arguing that allegations regarding difficulties obtaining vacation time and expectations to work weekends and statutory holidays improperly expanded the scope of the grievance.

The Arbitrator dismissed the motion, finding that while the paragraphs could not support an independent violation of the vacation or hours of work provisions, they were arguably relevant to the grievor's core allegation that changes to her work resulted in overwork and stress.

The grievor failed to attend the scheduled video conference hearing for his grievance.

The union representative and employer counsel were present.

After waiting 20 minutes, the arbitrator adjourned the hearing.

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

The union grieved a one-day suspension imposed on the grievor for alleged misconduct in the execution of their duties.

The matter proceeded as a mediation/arbitration pursuant to the collective agreement.

The arbitrator determined that the imposition of discipline was not warranted in the circumstances.

The grievance was allowed and the letter of suspension was ordered rescinded, with no further compensation awarded.

The grievor, a correctional officer, received a 10-day suspension for allegedly using unnecessary and excessive force (OC spray) on an inmate, failing to deploy it at a minimum distance, and being untruthful in occurrence reports.

The arbitrator found that the inmate was still actively fighting and kicking when the grievor deployed the spray, making the use of force objectively reasonable and not excessive.

The employer failed to prove the allegations regarding distance and untruthfulness.

The grievance was allowed, and the discipline was rescinded.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of the grievor after the employer denied a request for a paid leave of absence.

The matter proceeded to mediation/arbitration pursuant to the collective agreement.

The arbitrator ordered the employer to pay the grievor two days' wages at the rate in effect on the date of the request.

The parties disputed Minutes of Settlement agreed upon 'in principle' but not yet signed.

During a teleconference, counsel agreed to an order establishing a timetable for the exchange of pleadings and productions prior to a hearing on the merits.

The Arbitrator issued a procedural order detailing the schedule and requirements for the parties' statements of fact and document disclosure.

The Union requested an amendment to a previous order requiring the Employer to produce a court recording.

The Union sought to expand the time frame of the recording to be produced from noon to approximately 1:30 p.m.

The Employer did not object to the request.

The Arbitrator ordered the Employer to forthwith produce the requested court recording for the amended time frame.

The union filed a grievance claiming the grievor was short paid for the 65-day waiting period prior to receiving WSIB payments.

The employer abandoned its counterclaim for alleged double payment.

The parties exchanged documents revealing the grievor was short paid $3,652.74 for the 65-day period in 2013, and $258.51 for sick leave absences in 2014.

The arbitrator upheld the grievance and ordered the employer to pay the total amount of $3,911.25 plus interest.

The grievor challenged the outcome of a job competition for a Senior Food Services Officer (Cook 3) position.

The employer relied exclusively on interview scores to select the successful candidate, failing to consider the grievor's years of actual experience performing the duties of the posted position.

The arbitrator found that this exclusive reliance on interview scores, without considering demonstrated ability, violated the collective agreement's requirement to give primary consideration to qualifications and ability.

The arbitrator ordered the competition to be re-run, noting that the interview format also disadvantaged the grievor as a non-native English speaker.

The parties attended a mediation regarding a grievance which did not result in a settlement.

The arbitrator issued a procedural order setting a timetable for the exchange of particulars and the production of documents.

The hearing was adjourned to a later date.

The Grievor's employment was terminated after he called in sick or requested a shift change for family care on five occasions, but instead worked at a second job for the City of Toronto.

The Grievor also left a rescheduled shift early, claiming illness, which the arbitrator found to be a further act of dishonesty.

The Union grieved the termination, arguing the Employer failed to use progressive discipline and lulled the Grievor into a false sense of security.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding the Grievor's repeated dishonesty regarding his absences constituted just cause for discharge and that no mitigating factors warranted a lesser penalty.

The Union sought the production of documents from the Employer in preparation for a scheduled grievance arbitration hearing.

Following a conference call, the Arbitrator found the requested documents to be arguably relevant and ordered their production, including investigation reports, manager notes, personnel files, and documents the Employer anticipated relying on.

The Employer retained the right to argue privilege or relevance.

The Union appealed the denial of long-term income protection (LTIP) benefits for a Corrections Officer who ceased working following a workplace injury.

The central issue was whether the employee met the definition of total disability during the qualification period.

The arbitrator found that the employee's medical restrictions, primarily related to overhead activities and lifting, did not prevent them from performing the essential duties of their permanently accommodated, largely sedentary position in the Control Room.

The appeal was dismissed.

The union appealed the denial of Long Term Disability Benefits for the grievor's any-occupation period beginning July 15, 2015.

Following a hearing, the arbitrator directed that the claimant receive LTIP any-occupation benefits from July 15, 2015, to December 14, 2020.

The insurer was directed to continue administering the claim in accordance with the collective agreement, and the claimant retained the right to appeal any future denial.

The employer requested the Grievance Settlement Board to convene after the union failed to provide particulars regarding an overtime scheduling grievance, as previously agreed.

The Arbitrator ordered the union to provide full written particulars of the material facts on which it relies by January 11, 2021, failing which the union may be barred from introducing evidence or the grievance may be dismissed summarily.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of a bailiff whose position was eliminated when the employer disbanded the Offender Transportation Department and reassigned the duties to correctional officers.

The employer had provided notice of the realignment and the parties had negotiated a Memorandum of Agreement to manage the transition of affected employees.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that the employer acted within its management rights to realign work for business needs, the decision was not arbitrary, and the grievor received the enhanced entitlements negotiated in the Memorandum of Agreement.

The grievor, a Provincial Bailiff, filed a grievance alleging the Employer violated the collective agreement by arbitrarily disbanding the Offender Transportation Department and transferring duties to Correctional Officers.

The Employer had provided notice of the realignment to suit business needs and negotiated a Memorandum of Agreement with the Union to minimize impacts on affected employees, including the grievor.

The Arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding the Employer acted within its management rights to realign work and reporting relationships, and there was no evidence the decision was arbitrary.

The parties consented to an order requiring the union to provide further and better particulars to the employer regarding the August 15, 2018 grievance.

The particulars must include the facts supporting the alleged breach of the collective agreement, including what was done, when, where, by whom, and with what motivation.

The particulars are to be treated as confidential and provided by February 1, 2021.