Grievance Settlement Board

At a video conference hearing, an attempt to mediate the dispute was unsuccessful.

The arbitrator determined that opening statements would not be useful due to factual issues and the employer's failure to provide full production of arguably relevant documentation.

The arbitrator ordered the employer to provide full disclosure of all arguably relevant material to the union by September 4, 2020, and scheduled a subsequent video conference to deal with pre-hearing motions.

The union grieved on behalf of the employee regarding his ability to perform the duties of his home position.

Following a hearing and review of medical documentation, including two Independent Medical Examinations, the arbitrator found that the grievor was unable to perform the duties of his home position from May 19, 2016, to July 20, 2020.

The arbitrator made no finding regarding the grievor's ability to perform duties after July 20, 2020, and remitted the issue of compensation back to the parties for resolution.

In a grievance arbitration, the Arbitrator directed the parties to confer and agree upon letters to be sent to the grievor's family doctor and a specialist.

The Arbitrator ordered that once the letters were agreed upon, they would be appended to an order directing the doctors to respond.

The Arbitrator also granted the employer's request to make future submissions on whether the grievances should be dismissed.

The Grievance Settlement Board held a case management session regarding consolidated grievances over the use of surveillance cameras at correctional facilities.

The Arbitrator issued procedural directions, including the selection of reference grievances, the use of written declarations in lieu of oral evidence in chief, timelines for filing declarations, and limits on oral evidence and cross-examination.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued procedural directions following a case management session for a grievance relating to the termination of the grievor's employment.

The Arbitrator set deadlines for filing an Agreed Statement of Facts, declarations in lieu of examination-in-chief, and a joint Book of Documents.

Time limits were also established for opening statements, supplementary oral evidence, cross-examination, and final arguments.

The grievor, a fixed term contract Correctional Officer at the Central East Correctional Centre, filed a grievance alleging that the Employer violated the collective agreement by allowing fixed term contract officers transferring from other institutions to retain their accumulated hours for the purpose of rollovers to regular classified status.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that the grievor failed to provide any agreements supporting his claim and noting that standard Memoranda of Agreement require fixed term officers to be employed at the specific location for one year prior to qualifying for a rollover.

In an ongoing arbitration proceeding held virtually due to COVID-19, the Union requested permission to share arguably relevant documents with the Grievor to prepare its case.

The Employer raised confidentiality concerns.

The Arbitrator issued an interim order permitting the Union to share the documents with the Grievor for the purpose of preparing for cross-examination, subject to strict conditions regarding copying, use, return or destruction, and ongoing confidentiality.

The Arbitrator warned that a breach of the order could result in the dismissal of the grievances.

The Union brought a motion to consolidate ten grievances filed by the grievor between 2017 and 2019.

The Employer agreed to consolidate the 2017 and 2019 grievances but objected to including the 2018 grievance, arguing it involved a discrete issue concerning a leave request made to a different manager.

The Arbitrator granted the motion to consolidate all ten grievances, finding that the 2018 grievance alleged discriminatory treatment, which was also raised in the 2019 grievances.

The Arbitrator concluded that hearing the 2018 grievance separately would prejudice the grievor, be inefficient, and risk inconsistent decisions.

The employer brought a motion to adjourn a scheduled hearing date in a termination grievance, citing difficulties in preparing a reply witness who was no longer an employee, exacerbated by Covid-19 restrictions.

The union opposed the motion, arguing the grievor had already faced significant delay.

The Arbitrator granted the adjournment, finding no pattern of delay by the employer, accepting the logistical difficulties, and noting that a replacement date was available shortly after the originally scheduled dates, resulting in minimal overall delay.

The Union filed grievances on behalf of several employees whose applications for the Transition Exit Initiative (TEI) were denied by the Employer.

The Union argued that the Employer fettered its discretion by only considering whether the employees' positions were still required.

The Arbitrator dismissed the grievances, finding no meaningful distinction from previous decisions which held that the Employer has broad discretion under Appendix 46 to determine whether an employee's exit supports the transformation of the Ontario Public Service.

The union grieved 3, 5, and 7-day suspensions imposed on employees for failing to follow managerial meal service directives.

During a conference call to discuss the process for a video-conference hearing, the arbitrator issued case management directions.

The arbitrator ordered that evidence in chief take the form of written declarations, set a schedule for filing the declarations, and established rules for oral evidence and cross-examination at the hearing.

The parties requested a teleconference to discuss procedural matters in advance of scheduled hearing dates.

The arbitrator directed that the hearing proceed via videoconference on the Zoom platform.

The employer agreed to provide a compendium of documents and proceed first with its evidence.

The parties were granted leave to request an in-person hearing for later dates if circumstances permit.

The Union alleged the Employer breached a 1996 grievance settlement and the collective agreement by failing to restore the grievor's pension credits after she was reinstated.

The grievor had cashed out her pension contributions upon her initial termination in 1994 and sought approximately $280,000 to buy back the credits.

The Employer brought a motion to dismiss for no prima facie case.

The Arbitrator granted the motion, finding the collective agreement did not apply and the 'make whole' provision of the settlement did not require the Employer to compensate the grievor for the current value of contributions she had already cashed out without loss.

The Association filed a grievance claiming that Senior Investigators employed by the Ministry of Finance should receive overtime pay for time spent on-call for the Tobacco Call Line outside of normal working hours.

The Arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that the weight of arbitral authority establishes that stand-by or on-call duties do not constitute work for the purposes of overtime provisions unless expressly negotiated in the collective agreement.

The restrictions placed on the grievors while on-call were not sufficient to render the time as work, and the quantum meruit principle did not apply.

The union filed grievances on behalf of four employees whose requests for enhanced severance benefits under the Transition Exit Initiative were denied by the employer.

The union argued that the employer fettered its discretion by only considering whether the positions were still required.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievances, finding no basis to distinguish them from previous decisions which established that the employer has broad discretion under the collective agreement to determine whether an employee's exit supports the transformation of the public service.

The union grieved the termination of a seasonal warehouse worker who was subject to a last chance agreement.

The employer terminated the worker after he left his work station three minutes early for a break while the conveyor light was on, arguing this constituted insubordination and justified discipline under the strict terms of the agreement.

The arbitrator found that the employer was justified in imposing discipline given the worker's recent disciplinary record and prior coaching.

The arbitrator rejected the union's arguments that the breach was de minimis or that the termination was void ab initio, holding that the strict terms of the last chance agreement must be enforced.

The grievance was dismissed.

The grievor, a Casual Customer Service Representative with eight years of service at the LCBO, grieved a ten-day suspension and his subsequent termination.

The suspension was issued for two incidents of insubordination and using profane language towards a manager and a co-worker.

The termination followed a culminating incident where the grievor placed unpurchased beer in the staff fridge, contrary to a direct management order.

The arbitrator found that while the grievor did not technically violate the written Staff Purchase Policy, he deliberately disobeyed a lawful and reasonable order regarding the storage of unpurchased product.

Given the grievor's extensive disciplinary record for similar insubordinate conduct and his lack of remorse, the arbitrator concluded that the progressive discipline was appropriate and upheld both the suspension and the termination.

The Association requested the production of all documentation in a Workplace Discrimination and Harassment Prevention (WDHP) file regarding an investigation into the Complainant.

The Association alleged the investigation was initiated as a reprisal for the Complainant enforcing his collective agreement rights.

The Employer resisted production, arguing it was premature and would prejudice the discipline process.

The Arbitrator ordered the production of the documents, finding them arguably relevant to the Association's reprisal allegations.

In a grievance arbitration concerning the grievor's termination, the employer requested disclosure of the grievor's medical records.

The union sought to limit production to arguably relevant records within a specific timeframe and requested conditions on their handling, as well as anonymization of the grievor's identity.

The arbitrator ordered the union to disclose arguably relevant medical documents pertaining to the grievor's mental condition for the 12 months prior to termination, subject to strict confidentiality conditions.

The parties agreed to anonymize the grievor's identity in the decision.

Following a prior decision, the Arbitrator convened a conference call to address the status of the grievance.

The parties were encouraged to pursue settlement discussions.

The Union was directed to confirm within 14 days whether the grievance would be withdrawn, failing which a further conference call would be convened to hear submissions on the employer's request to dismiss the grievance.