Grievance Settlement Board

The employer brought a motion to strike portions of the grievor's Will Say Statement in an arbitration concerning workplace accommodation and termination.

The employer argued the evidence was irrelevant, unparticularized, and included privileged mediation discussions.

The union also requested that the grievor remain anonymous due to the personal medical information involved.

The Grievance Settlement Board granted the anonymity request and allowed the employer's motion in part, striking evidence regarding other employees, pre-disability events, post-grievance Stage 2 meetings, and confidential mediation discussions, while permitting some evidence of alleged differential treatment.

The union filed grievances regarding two letters of reprimand issued to the grievor.

The matter proceeded via expedited mediation-arbitration.

The arbitrator directed the employer to remove the first letter of reprimand from the grievor's file, as it was more than three years old and could no longer be used in subsequent disciplinary proceedings pursuant to the collective agreement.

The arbitrator directed the employer to convert the second letter of reprimand to a letter of counsel given the length of time that had passed since it was issued.

The grievances were upheld in part.

The grievor, a Court Services Officer with nine months of service, was discharged after yelling and swearing at a co-worker in a courthouse hallway.

The union conceded that the conduct warranted discipline but argued that discharge was excessive.

The Grievance Settlement Board upheld the discharge, finding that the grievor failed to take any responsibility for his misconduct, showed no remorse, and was untruthful during the investigation and the hearing.

The Board concluded that the grievor's belief that his conduct was justified and his lack of remorse made reinstatement inappropriate.

In a grievance arbitration concerning multiple suspensions and the termination of the grievor's employment, the parties disputed the production of various documents.

The Vice-Chair of the Grievance Settlement Board reviewed the outstanding disclosure requests, applying the test of arguable relevance.

The Board issued directions ordering the production of certain occurrence reports, emails, and performance appraisals, while confirming that other requested documents either did not exist or were not arguably relevant to the issues in dispute.

The Union requested an order for the production of documents in relation to a grievance filed by a correctional officer.

The Employer did not oppose the request.

The Grievance Settlement Board directed the Employer to produce the requested documents by a specified date.

The grievor, a Maintenance Foreman, alleged that his personal vehicle was damaged in the employer's parking lot by a stone discharged from a lawnmower operated by another employee.

The union argued this violated the health and safety provisions of the collective agreement.

The employer objected that the grievance was not arbitrable.

The arbitrator held that the essential character of the dispute related to a claim of negligence regarding personal property, not health and safety, and lacked a sufficient nexus to the collective agreement.

The grievance was dismissed.

The grievor, a Psychologist 1, filed a grievance alleging that the Employer violated the collective agreement by refusing to credit her prior work experience when setting her starting salary, while later granting such credit to a newly hired employee.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the grievor's starting salary was in accordance with the collective agreement and the Employer's policy at the time of her hire.

The Employer's subsequent policy change to allow discretionary salary adjustments for new hires due to recruitment concerns did not violate the collective agreement.

The parties disputed whether a Memorandum of Settlement signed on November 28, 2014, resolved seven grievances filed by the grievor in 2013 regarding statutory holiday pay.

The Employer argued that the settlement's language withdrawing 'any and all grievances up to today's date' included the 2013 grievances.

The Union argued that the settlement was intended only to cover grievances filed between March 2010 and November 2012, as specified in other clauses.

The Vice-Chair found that, reading the agreement as a whole and in context, the parties intended to resolve only the grievances from 2010 to 2012.

The 2013 grievances were not resolved by the settlement and remain to be scheduled.

The union filed a grievance regarding the employer's failure to comply with Minutes of Settlement signed in October 2014.

The employer conceded that it breached the settlement by failing to provide the agreed-upon training in human rights, equity, diversity, workplace violence, harassment, and bullying within the twelve-month timeline.

The Grievance Settlement Board noted the employer's commitment to training and remained seized of any interpretation issues.

The parties participated in an expedited mediation-arbitration process regarding multiple grievances.

Ten grievances alleged the grievor was inappropriately refused overtime because he was on modified work duties due to a disability.

The Vice-Chair directed the employer to provide ten attendance credits as a compromise settlement.

Two grievances alleging harassment were dismissed.

A grievance regarding a three-day suspension was upheld in part, with the suspension reduced to one day and the employer directed to reimburse the grievor for two days' pay.

The employer brought a preliminary motion arguing the Grievance Settlement Board lacked jurisdiction to award damages to the grievor for a compensable workplace injury.

The grievor, a Court Services Officer, was injured during a physical altercation between litigants and received WSIB benefits.

The union grieved that the employer failed to provide a safe working environment and sought damages for lost wages, credits, and pain and suffering.

The Board granted the employer's motion, following previous jurisprudence which held that section 26(2) of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act precludes the Board from awarding damages for a compensable injury.

The union was permitted to proceed with its claims for declaratory and directory relief.

The employer requested an adjournment of the hearing because its advisor was ill and unable to attend.

The Grievance Settlement Board granted the adjournment and directed the parties to contact the Board to arrange further dates.

In a job posting grievance where the grievor was screened out, the parties were unable to resolve the matter through mediation.

As the exchange of particulars and production had not been completed, the Vice-Chair issued procedural directions ordering the Employer and the Union to exchange full particulars and produce relevant documents prior to the hearing.

The hearing was scheduled to be completed in one day with strict time limits for each party's presentation.

During a conference call regarding outstanding production issues in a series of discipline and termination grievances, the Vice-Chair canvassed the parties on scheduling additional hearing dates and engaging in further settlement discussions.

After speaking with counsel separately, the Vice-Chair determined that sufficient movement had occurred to warrant further mediation.

The Vice-Chair directed that previously scheduled hearing dates be converted to mediation days and scheduled additional hearing dates for 2018.

The employer brought a motion to dismiss a grievance filed in 2011 that was not referred to arbitration until 2015, arguing it was untimely.

The union argued the grievance was arbitrable because the parties agreed to postpone the Stage 2 meeting indefinitely, there was a past practice of holding grievances in abeyance while an employee was on sick leave, and the employer waived its right to object to the time limits.

The Grievance Settlement Board rejected the first two arguments but found that, on an objective basis, the employer's representative had waived the right to object to the late referral during a telephone conversation with the union representative.

The motion to dismiss was denied and the grievance was scheduled for a hearing.

The Union requested four additional hearing dates in anticipation of the matter proceeding to hearing.

The Employer resisted setting dates until the Union complied with a prior production order for the grievor's medical records and benefit applications.

The Vice-Chair directed the parties to set four additional dates, but ordered the Union to provide confirmation of best efforts to comply with the production order within 30 days, and to satisfy the order by September 29, 2017, failing which the additional dates would be cancelled.

The union filed grievances on behalf of correctional officers, alleging the employer failed to maintain the currency of their escort training, which resulted in lost overtime opportunities at another institution.

The matter proceeded via an expedited mediation-arbitration process.

The Vice-Chair denied the grievances without detailed reasons, in accordance with the negotiated protocol for expedited mediation-arbitration.

The Union filed a grievance alleging that meetings held by the Employer with Correctional Officers on Unit 6 were investigatory and denied members their right to union representation.

The Employer maintained the meetings were to review expectations and discuss concerns.

The Vice-Chair, acting under the Expedited Mediation-Arbitration protocol, denied the grievance without providing reasons, noting the context of ongoing complaints and related grievances referred to regular arbitration.

The union filed grievances alleging that the employer's decision to temporarily close a specific unit at the Ontario Correctional Institute and disperse its staff and residents on two occasions constituted discrimination under the Human Rights Code, discrimination based on union activity, and bullying and harassment.

The grievors argued that the unit had a high concentration of union activists and racialized staff, and that the closures were illogical compared to other options.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievances, finding the evidence entirely circumstantial and insufficient to establish that the employer's actions breached the collective agreement.

The union filed grievances alleging the employer violated the collective agreement by manually scheduling nurses at a correctional institute instead of using a computerized system.

The collective agreement incorporated a provincial overtime protocol requiring a computerized overtime tracking system and daily distribution reports.

The arbitrator found the manual system did not meet these requirements and ordered the employer to implement a compliant computerized system within 20 days.

Requests for damages were denied due to a lack of evidence of lost opportunities.