Grievance Settlement Board

During a grievance arbitration regarding alleged excessive discipline and workplace harassment, the employer brought an application to restrict the union from calling evidence about events that occurred after the grievances were filed.

The events involved a vacation request and the removal of newspaper articles about the grievor's previous successful discrimination litigation.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the application, finding that the union had provided particulars of these events three years prior, they formed part of the narrative arc, and it was too late for the employer to object.

The union filed a policy grievance concerning the interpretation of 'gross pay' in the collective agreement.

Following representations and agreements between the parties, the arbitrator issued a declaration.

The arbitrator found that 'gross pay' includes payments for Sunday work, authorized holiday work, acting for the store manager, night shift work, and overtime, with the interpretation taking effect on February 1, 2017.

The union filed a grievance alleging a violation of articles 2.1 and 3.3 of the Collective Agreement and the Workplace Harassment and Discrimination Prevention Policy.

The parties referred the grievance to mediation/arbitration under Article 22.16 of the collective agreement and requested a decision without precedent or prejudice, and without written reasons.

The arbitrator denied the grievance.

The union filed a grievance alleging the employer violated confidentiality by making the grievor's personal information available to coworkers in a shared IT resource.

The matter proceeded via expedited mediation-arbitration.

The arbitrator directed the employer to pay the grievor $250 in damages and dismissed the grievance.

The grievor filed a grievance alleging the employer discriminated against her by refusing to place her on the rotational list to backfill the assistant scheduling officer position, and retaliated against her for exercising a right under the Respectful Workplace Policy.

The matter proceeded via expedited mediation-arbitration.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the grievance, finding the grievor failed to establish a violation of the collective agreement.

In a policy grievance asserting bargaining rights over PRESTO and UP Express, the union sought production of documents showing when bargaining unit members performed work for other lines of business.

The employer objected, arguing the request was overbroad and a fishing expedition.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that the union's broad request for all instances of crossover work was overbroad.

However, the Board ordered production of documents relating specifically to the work the union had particularized at UP Express and PRESTO, finding this narrower request to be a proportionate and specific inquiry relevant to the union's theory of the case.

The Union filed grievances alleging the Employer failed to implement a Memorandum of Settlement.

The settlement required the Employer to change the term 'not qualified' to 'deferred or ineligible' in its HPRO software for employees with medical restrictions affecting overtime.

The Employer had not implemented the change nine months after the agreed date, citing unexpected difficulties.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the Employer to fully implement the change within 30 days, warning that failure to do so would result in an award of damages.

The grievor, a fixed-term Correctional Officer, filed a grievance alleging the Employer violated the Collective Agreement by failing to roll him over into classified status pursuant to a February 2013 Memorandum of Agreement.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the grievor did not respond to the posted Expression of Interest and, in any event, did not have the necessary seniority hours to qualify for the roll-over at that time.

The grievor was subsequently rolled over in a later exercise.

The grievor, a Correctional Officer, sought to have his past fixed-term service with the Ministry of Natural Resources recognized for his Continuous Service Date after rolling over into classified status with the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services.

The Employer argued that a 15-month break in service between the two contracts precluded this recognition.

The Grievance Settlement Board agreed with the Employer, finding that the break in service meant the employment could not be considered continuous, and dismissed the grievance.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued a mutual document production order in a grievance alleging workplace harassment and discrimination.

The Employer and the Union were ordered to produce various documents, including medical records, investigation reports, and correspondence, subject to claims of privilege and confidentiality agreements.

The parties disputed the calculation of remedial compensation following a previous decision that reinstated the grievor.

The employer required the grievor to return to work on short notice, and when she was unavailable for three days due to prior commitments, the employer did not pay her for those days.

The union argued this violated the reinstatement order.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the employer's timeline was generally reasonable, but the grievor was reasonably unavailable for one of the three days due to a pre-existing appointment.

The Board ordered the employer to pay the grievor for one day of lost wages.

The union filed a grievance regarding an incident where a boot was moved to a garbage area and a video of the event was subsequently disclosed to a bargaining unit member.

The matter proceeded through an expedited mediation-arbitration process.

The arbitrator found no violation of the collective agreement, although noting the employer was ill-advised to release the video.

The grievance was denied.

The union filed grievances on behalf of two employees alleging the employer violated the collective agreement by failing to adhere to its own policies and procedures following an incident involving an inmate threat.

The matter proceeded through an expedited mediation-arbitration process.

The arbitrator upheld the grievance, ordering the employer to comply with the Institutional Policy and Procedures Manual pertaining to threats against employees, determine appropriate offender relocation when threats are confirmed, and ensure threatened employees are kept informed of proceedings.

The Employer requested documents pertaining to the grievor's criminal charges and trial, while the Union requested a list of documents over which the Employer claimed privilege.

The Vice-Chair ordered that the Employer's document request be deferred until a decision is made on its preliminary motion to dismiss based on the grievor's probationary status.

The Employer was ordered to provide a list of documents preceding the termination date over which it claimed privilege, including the date, author, recipients, general subject matter, and privilege claimed.

A group of fixed term correctional officers filed a grievance alleging the employer breached the collective agreement by failing to pay premium pay for work scheduled on days off before their scheduled forty hours.

The parties referred the grievance to mediation/arbitration and requested a decision without precedent or prejudice, and without written reasons.

The Grievance Settlement Board denied the grievance.

The grievor, a Nurse 2, filed a grievance alleging the employer breached the collective agreement by failing to pay her at level nine of the pay grid.

The parties referred the matter to mediation/arbitration and requested a decision without precedent, prejudice, or written reasons.

The arbitrator granted the grievance in part, ordering the employer to adjust the grievor's pay to level nine retroactively to 20 days before the grievance was filed and to compensate her accordingly.

The parties engaged in a Med-Arb process to resolve outstanding overtime grievances filed by Correctional Officers at various institutions.

The Vice-Chair issued a decision detailing the disposition of numerous grievances, with some being upheld and others dismissed.

Any monies owing to individual grievors were ordered to be paid at the appropriate overtime rate less statutory deductions.

The union filed a grievance regarding the medical accommodation of the grievor.

Through a med/arb process, the Vice-Chair ordered the employer to directly assign the grievor to work at 47 Sheppard Ave East until a new office at 786 Lawrence Ave West opens, at which point she will be assigned there.

This assignment was deemed to meet any existing medical accommodation requirements and fully resolved the grievance.

The assignment is to take effect within one week of the grievor providing medical clearance.

The union alleged that the employer breached the original Minutes of Settlement regarding a phased retirement arrangement by changing the grievor's Post-Retirement Benefits (PRB).

The employer argued that the issue was resolved by a subsequent corporate Memorandum of Settlement that addressed all outstanding matters related to PRB changes.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the corporate settlement's broad release and entire agreement clauses covered the grievor's situation, as the original settlement was silent on PRB.

The union's request for production of documents to support an allegation of bad faith was dismissed as a fishing expedition.

The Union applied for interim relief seeking an order that the Employer accommodate the grievor in a non-driving position pending the outcome of his grievance.

The grievor, a coach technician, had his driver's license suspended following an impaired driving charge, but asserted he suffered from alcoholism requiring accommodation.

The Grievance Settlement Board denied the application, finding that granting the requested interim relief would effectively dispose of the main accommodation issue in the grievance without a full hearing on the merits, which exceeds the arbitrator's procedural powers under the Labour Relations Act.