Grievance Settlement Board

The employer brought a motion to dismiss the grievance after the grievor failed to attend a hearing.

The arbitrator had previously ordered the grievance dismissed unless the grievor provided good and sufficient cause for his non-attendance by a specified deadline.

The grievor submitted an unsigned medical note past the deadline.

Upon inquiry, the union confirmed the purported doctor did not exist and did not work at the named hospital.

The arbitrator found the grievor failed to demonstrate good and sufficient cause and dismissed the grievance due to the late filing and the fraudulent nature of the medical document.

The Arbitrator issued case management directions for the arbitration of several grievances relating to a job competition.

The directions set out a schedule for the production of documents, the filing of declarations in lieu of oral evidence in chief, and strict time limits for cross-examination and oral argument at the hearing.

During a grievance arbitration, the union sought to introduce evidence of two prior incidents involving a witness to demonstrate workplace culture.

The employer objected, arguing the evidence was improper propensity evidence.

The arbitrator ruled that the evidence could not be admitted to show propensity.

However, because the employer had put workplace culture in issue, evidence of one incident was admitted as relevant to that issue.

Evidence of the second incident was excluded as irrelevant to the characterization of the work environment.

During the hearing of discipline grievances, the Union made approximately 25 disclosure requests relating to the cross-examination of an Employer witness.

The Arbitrator ruled on the requests, denying several as irrelevant or constituting a fishing expedition, such as requests for draft disciplinary letters and phone records sought merely to test credibility on collateral matters.

The Arbitrator ordered the production of the witness's investigative training records and certain written requests for occurrence reports, if they existed.

The parties engaged in mediation and executed a Memorandum of Settlement resolving the union grievance regarding the Attendance Support and Management Program (ASMP).

The settlement stipulates that absences flowing from a disability as defined by the Human Rights Code must be precluded from the ASMP, and the employer shall accept any note from a legally qualified medical practitioner indicating the absence was related to a disability.

The arbitrator issued the settlement terms as a consent order of the Board.

The grievor, a long-service employee, was promoted to a Volunteer Services Coordinator position and placed at Step 4 of the salary range in accordance with the collective agreement's promotion provisions.

The grievor argued this was unfair because a co-worker with less seniority was placed at a higher step (Step 6) upon promotion to the same role.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that the Employer had strictly complied with the collective agreement's pay administration rules and that perceived unfairness compared to another employee did not constitute a violation of the agreement.

The Union filed grievances alleging discrimination and harassment by the Employer, seeking compensation for lost time and medical expenses due to chronic mental stress.

The Employer raised a preliminary objection, arguing the arbitrator lacked jurisdiction to grant these remedies because the claims fall under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act (WSIA).

The arbitrator applied the Monk decision, finding that the alleged chronic mental stress arising from harassment would be a compensable disability under the WSIA, and therefore the claims for compensation for lost time and medical expenses must be struck.

In a termination grievance, the Arbitrator issued case management directions ordering the Employer to provide full particulars of the facts relied upon for termination and to produce various documents, including the FIT file, communications with DND, and the complainant's work emails.

The Association was also directed to produce communications between the complainant and DND, notes from the allegation meeting, and any documents it intends to rely upon.

The union requested an adjournment on the first day of a termination grievance hearing because the grievor failed to attend, citing recent medical treatment.

The employer objected and sought dismissal of the grievance, arguing the grievor failed to provide advance notice or medical documentation.

The arbitrator granted the adjournment without conditions, noting the serious nature of a termination grievance and that the grievor had contacted the union the previous evening regarding her medical situation.

The Union sought a supplementary order, alleging the Employer failed to comply with a prior production order dated November 22, 2017.

The Arbitrator heard submissions and ordered the Employer to forthwith produce the complete Local Investigation Report, associated notes, notes of meetings with the grievor and the union, and any occurrence reports or complaint forms issued by staff against specific individuals.

In preparation for a grievance arbitration hearing scheduled for July 2018, the Arbitrator ordered the Union to produce all arguably relevant medical documents regarding the grievor's return to work following a 2012 WSIB injury.

The Union was directed to provide the documents by May 11, 2018, failing which the grievances could be dismissed.

A confidentiality order was also imposed limiting disclosure of the medical information.

The grievance of Marcia Williams was adjourned on consent of the parties.

The adjournment is pending the provision of medical confirmation from the grievor's physician that she is fit to proceed with a hearing or mediated settlement discussions.

The medical confirmation must be provided no later than 30 days prior to the continuation date.

The grievor, a Records Clerk, took eight vacation days to be with her terminally ill mother-in-law and to attend to matters following her passing.

She subsequently requested that these vacation days be converted to paid special and compassionate leave under the collective agreement.

The Employer denied the request, noting it was made after the fact and that the grievor had already received the maximum three days of compassionate leave and her full bereavement leave entitlement.

The Arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding the Employer's decision was made in good faith, free from arbitrariness and discrimination, and constituted a reasonable exercise of discretion.

In a job-posting grievance arbitration, the parties sought preliminary rulings on notice to incumbents and retroactive pay.

The Arbitrator ruled that successful applicants in the original competition should be given notice and party status, with certain exceptions.

On the issue of retroactive pay, the Arbitrator held that if a re-run of the job competition is ordered, any retroactivity for a successful grievor would commence from the starting date of the re-run competition, not the original competition.

The Union filed 44 grievances alleging that a manager engaged in bullying, harassment, and discrimination, violating the collective agreement and health and safety legislation.

After the Union presented its evidence, the Employer brought a motion for non-suit.

The Arbitrator upheld the motion, finding that the Union failed to establish a prima facie case.

The evidence presented, even if assumed to be true, did not demonstrate a course of harassing conduct or any violation of the collective agreement, but rather instances of miscommunication or less than ideal management practices.

The Union filed grievances regarding the calculation of compensating time for Correctional Officers who miss meal breaks while on hospital escort duty.

The Union argued that under the Memorandum of Settlement, officers on a twelve-hour shift missing two meal breaks should receive two hours of compensating time.

The Arbitrator found the language of the Memorandum unambiguous, stating that officers are entitled to one hour of compensating leave 'for the shift' regardless of its length or the number of missed breaks.

The grievances were denied.

The grievor, a Correctional Officer, worked his regular shift and went home.

He had previously signed up for overtime availability.

Due to a snowstorm, he was called and offered a part-shift, which he accepted.

He was paid overtime rates.

He grieved, arguing he should have received a four-hour minimum call back pay, noting another officer who had not signed up for overtime received call back pay.

The Arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding the grievor was offered and accepted overtime in accordance with the Provincial Overtime Protocol, whereas the other officer had not indicated availability and was thus in a different position.

The Employer moved to strike particulars from a grievance alleging a failure to accommodate the grievor's back issues.

The disputed particulars related to a period when the grievor took a leave of absence to work for the Patient Ombudsman, a separate employer.

The Grievance Settlement Board granted the motion, finding it lacked jurisdiction to consider allegations of failure to accommodate while the grievor was employed by a different employer, as the Employer's duty to accommodate did not continue during that period.

The parties sought clarification on the implementation of a prior award regarding inmate escorts.

The union argued that when only one Correctional Officer (CO) is available for an escort, the employer must assign that CO alongside a police officer.

The arbitrator held that the employer is not required to form a mixed crew of COs and police officers when there are insufficient COs available, as the employer retains discretion to make alternate arrangements in such circumstances.

The grievor filed a grievance alleging the employer provided erroneous information to independent medical evaluation specialists, based on draft letters she discovered in her occupational health file.

The employer argued the grievance was barred by a prior Memorandum of Settlement that fully and finally settled all claims related to her return to work and accommodation process up to November 30, 2012.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that the draft letters related to the matters settled in the Memorandum of Settlement and could not be raised as a separate and distinct event.