Grievance Settlement Board

In a grievance alleging a poisoned and toxic work environment, the parties disputed the permissible scope of evidence.

The Employer argued for a strict application of the Grievance Settlement Board's three-year rule, while the Union sought to introduce evidence dating back over seven years.

The Arbitrator applied the three-year rule as a guideline to balance the Union's need to establish a pattern of conduct against the Employer's right to defend against dated accusations.

The Arbitrator permitted the Union to call evidence starting approximately three and a half years prior to the grievance, along with specific earlier events related to subsequent particulars.

During an expedited arbitration hearing, the employer requested an adjournment to consult an absent manager, which was granted.

Before the resumed hearing, the employer brought a motion seeking production of the grievor's medical records from prior to the grievance.

The union opposed the motion.

The arbitrator dismissed the motion, finding that the adjournment was solely for consulting the absent manager and did not provide an opportunity for the employer to marshal a new case or seek further production.

The arbitrator previously ordered the employer to re-run a job competition.

The parties could not agree on the logistics.

The union insisted that the incumbents be compelled to re-compete for the jobs they were awarded four years ago.

The employer proposed to establish a benchmark score and place any successful grievors in the positions without requiring incumbents to re-compete.

The arbitrator agreed with the employer, finding no labour relations purpose in requiring incumbents to re-compete, and directed the employer to run the competition in accordance with the Board's jurisprudence.

Following a prior award, the parties were unable to agree on the quantum of damages payable to the Grievor for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

The Arbitrator directed the parties to provide written submissions on the issue and set a schedule for those submissions.

The employer brought a motion seeking an order to compel the grievor's attendance at the next scheduled hearing dates after the grievor failed to attend the initial hearing dates.

The arbitrator granted the motion, ordering the grievor to attend the rescheduled dates or face the potential dismissal of her grievance for failure to appear.

The grievor failed to attend her scheduled grievance arbitration hearing on July 27, 2018.

The arbitrator issued a direction requiring her to provide a written explanation for her non-attendance by August 15, 2018, failing which the grievance could be dismissed.

The grievor did not respond to the direction.

Consequently, the arbitrator dismissed the grievance.

The union requested the scheduling of four additional hearing dates for multiple grievances filed by a Correctional Officer.

The employer objected, arguing that scheduling dates before the outcome of the currently scheduled February 2019 dates could result in unnecessary cancellation costs if a settlement is reached.

The arbitrator ruled that four additional days would be scheduled beyond 30 calendar days from the last scheduled February date, ensuring no cancellation charges would be incurred if the dates are cancelled by that time.

The Union filed a grievance alleging the Employer modified a non-bargaining unit position such that it should be included in the bargaining unit, and failed to notify the Union of the changes.

The Employer raised a preliminary objection that the grievance was untimely and barred by the doctrine of laches, arguing the Union knew of a compensation review three years prior.

The Arbitrator dismissed the preliminary objection, finding the Union was not informed of substantive job duty changes and therefore could not have acquiesced.

Alternatively, the Arbitrator held that the failure to remit union dues for an allegedly improperly excluded position constitutes a continuing grievance, making it timely.

The parties encountered difficulties regarding pre-hearing production of documents.

The arbitrator made several oral orders, confirmed in this decision, directing the union and grievor to produce documents they intend to rely on, directing the employer to make inquiries regarding specific documents including a Mutual Aid Report and training materials, and directing the union to file full particulars of any defamation claim.

The Union sought an order for the production of documents related to three grievances concerning the discipline of the grievor.

Following a teleconference, the Arbitrator ordered the Employer to disclose and produce any and all arguably relevant documents pertaining to the discipline by September 18, 2018.

The claimant appealed the denial of her continuing Long Term Income Protection (LTIP) benefits.

The insurer terminated benefits at the change of definition date, asserting she could perform sedentary work despite her chronic back pain and degenerative disc disease.

The arbitrator upheld the appeal, finding that the medical evidence, including an Independent Medical Examination noting a 20-minute sitting and standing tolerance, did not establish an ability to perform sedentary work.

The arbitrator concluded that a functional abilities evaluation should have been conducted and remitted the matter of ongoing compensation to the parties.

In the context of a termination grievance, the parties failed to reach a settlement and proceeded to schedule arbitration dates.

Following discussions on process issues, the arbitrator issued an interim decision ordering the grievor to produce his cellular telephone records for a specific date, including calls, emails, text messages, and internet history logs.

The grievor was directed to obtain these records from his service provider if necessary and provide them to the union's counsel.

The union filed a grievance alleging the grievor was improperly denied compensation for using his personal cell phone for work activities, claiming the employer exercised its management rights unfairly.

The matter was referred to expedited mediation/arbitration under the collective agreement.

The arbitrator denied the grievance without written reasons, in accordance with the parties' policy for expedited hearings.

The grievor failed to attend her scheduled grievance arbitration hearing regarding pension credits and pay issues.

The employer requested that the grievance be dismissed.

The arbitrator declined to dismiss the grievance immediately, instead issuing a direction requiring the grievor to provide a written explanation for her non-attendance and failure to provide notice, warning that failure to do so could result in dismissal.

The grievor, a Customer Service Representative, filed a grievance alleging the employer breached the Collective Agreement by issuing a three-day suspension without pay.

The discipline was imposed for violations of the Respectful Workplace Policy, specifically for sending highly offensive and inappropriate emails containing derogatory language to a female colleague.

The arbitrator found the grievor's behaviour warranted discipline and that the three-day suspension was modest and just in the circumstances.

The grievance was dismissed.

The union grieved the termination of a correctional officer who left a cell door unlocked, allowing two inmates unsupervised access to a dayroom.

The grievor was subject to a last chance agreement that mandated termination for failing to observe unlocked inmates or carry out duties diligently.

The arbitrator found that the grievor failed to conduct a systematic check of the cell doors and did not ask his co-workers to complete the lock-up.

As the grievor's conduct violated the last chance agreement, the arbitrator had no jurisdiction to modify the penalty of dismissal.

The Union sought production of a confidential workplace restoration report and related documents, and requested that the grievor be permitted to adduce her evidence in chief by way of a will-say statement.

The Employer opposed both requests, arguing the report was confidential and not arguably relevant, and that oral testimony was required for credibility assessment.

The Arbitrator ordered production of the report with strict confidentiality restrictions, finding it arguably relevant for cross-examination or corroboration.

The Arbitrator also permitted the use of a will-say statement to improve efficiency, granting the same option to the Employer.

The Union filed a job-posting grievance regarding a competition for the Enforcement Services Officer position.

The arbitrator exercised discretion under Article 22.16 of the collective agreement to order a re-run of the job competition, noting that the best possible outcome for the grievors would be a re-run rather than direct placement into the positions.

The arbitrator remitted the logistics of the re-run to the parties.

The union sought an order for the Office of the Chief Coroner to produce investigation statements relating to a fire at Place Mont Roc that resulted in two fatalities.

Neither the employer nor the Coroner opposed the production.

The Arbitrator ordered the Coroner to produce the requested documents, subject to standard confidentiality conditions restricting their use to the instant proceeding.

The parties previously settled grievances alleging harassment and discrimination by signing Minutes of Settlement (MOS) that provided the grievor with a paid leave of absence until retirement.

The grievor subsequently claimed she was also entitled to severance pay.

The arbitrator held that the clear language of the MOS precluded any additional payments, noting the grievor had accepted the generous settlement terms with the assistance of her union representative.

The grievor's claim for additional compensation was dismissed.