104 total
Confidentiality order issued for documents disclosed by the employer in grievance proceedings.
The complainant requested disclosure of documents in the employer's custody, to which the employer agreed.
The parties sought an order from the Public Service Grievance Board regarding the disclosure.
The Board ordered that the disclosed documents be used solely for the litigation, not be disseminated to unauthorized persons, and be returned at the conclusion of the litigation, subject to counsel's retention of their litigation file.
Interim publication ban ordered in grievance arbitration to protect related criminal proceedings.
At the outset of a grievance arbitration hearing, the union advised that a court-ordered publication ban was in place for related criminal proceedings.
Noting the presence of a media representative, the Vice-Chair ordered an interim publication ban on any evidence presented at the hearing to avoid undermining the court order and potentially prejudicing the criminal proceedings.
The interim ban remains in effect pending review of the terms of the court-ordered ban.
Application alleging discriminatory collective bargaining proposal deemed premature, but oral submissions directed on section 13.
The applicant alleged discrimination in employment based on age and disability arising from the respondent's collective bargaining proposal to cease Long-term Income Protection (LTIP) benefits when an employee reaches their earliest unreduced pension date.
The respondent sought to dismiss the application as premature because the proposal had not been accepted or implemented.
The Tribunal found the application premature regarding actual discrimination but directed a preliminary hearing by conference call to allow the applicant to make oral submissions on whether the proposal constituted an announced intention to discriminate under section 13 of the Human Rights Code.
Grievances for robe cleaning reimbursement and equitable overtime distribution dismissed for lack of collective agreement rights.
The union filed two group grievances on behalf of courtroom registrars employed as flexible part-time staff.
The first grievance sought reimbursement for the cost of cleaning robes, which the employer had ceased paying.
The second grievance alleged that the employer failed to distribute overtime hours fairly and equitably.
The arbitrator dismissed both grievances, finding no provisions in the collective agreement that conferred a right to reimbursement for cleaning robes or a right to fair and equitable distribution of overtime for flexible part-time employees.
Grievance dismissed; assignment of information centre work to external service provider did not violate collective agreement.
The Union filed policy grievances alleging the Employer contravened the Collective Agreement by assigning bargaining unit work previously performed by Court Services Representatives at Family Law Information Centres to Information and Referral Coordinators supplied by an external service provider.
The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the work had not been exclusively performed by bargaining unit employees historically across the province, and that the Employer had validly contracted out the work to the external service provider.
Grievance Settlement Board decision quashed as unreasonable for relying on an irrelevant implementation agreement clause.
The applicant sought judicial review of a Grievance Settlement Board decision regarding the interpretation of a collective agreement.
The issue was whether the agreement provided for 100% reimbursement for a psychologist's report diagnosing the grievor's child with autism, or if it was subject to a cap for psychological services.
The Board had relied on a clause in a subsequent Implementation Agreement that neither party had made submissions on.
The Divisional Court found the Board's decision unreasonable because it relied on a paragraph that, in context, only applied to routine eye examinations and had no relevance to the psychological assessment at issue.
The Board's decision was quashed and remitted to a differently-constituted panel.
Publication restrictions ordered for grievance settlement regarding non-bargaining unit court reporters.
The Grievance Settlement Board issued an order restricting the publication and dissemination of a settlement agreement between the Union and the Employer regarding the use of non-bargaining unit court reporters.
The Union was directed to notify bargaining unit members by posting a specific statement on its website and was prohibited from otherwise distributing the settlement terms or making public comments, except as necessary to explain the terms to members.
Grievances over continuous service date calculations dismissed as employer correctly applied 40-hour week threshold.
The union filed grievances on behalf of several Ambulance Communication Officers, arguing that the employer improperly calculated their continuous service dates (CSD) when they transitioned from fixed-term to regular full-time employees.
The union contended that the employer's strict requirement of 40-hour work weeks to count towards CSD unfairly disregarded hours worked under compressed work week agreements.
The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievances, finding that the clear language of the collective agreement supported the employer's calculation method, which required 40 hours per week to constitute a 'full-time week' for fixed-term employees.
Grievance for stand-by pay dismissed as the grievor was not expressly authorized for stand-by duty.
The grievor, a Court Services Officer, filed a grievance claiming he was entitled to stand-by pay for several overnight shifts that were cancelled shortly before they were scheduled to begin.
The union argued that the grievor met the criteria for stand-by pay under the collective agreement.
The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding no evidence that the grievor was authorized in writing or expressly advised by a supervisor that he was being assigned stand-by duty, which was a mandatory requirement under the collective agreement.
Grievances dismissed on preliminary motion for failing to disclose a prima facie case.
The grievor filed four grievances alleging various breaches of the collective agreement, the Occupational Health & Safety Act, and the Workplace Harassment and Discrimination Policy, including allegations of religious discrimination and constructive dismissal.
The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the grievances on the basis that the particulars provided did not disclose a prima facie case.
The Grievance Settlement Board upheld the employer's motion, finding that even if the facts asserted were accepted as true and provable, they were not capable of establishing the elements to substantiate the alleged violations.
The grievances were dismissed.
Three grievances granted pursuant to the Mediation/Arbitration Procedure.
The arbitrator was seized with three grievances pursuant to the Mediation/Arbitration Procedure in the Collective Agreement.
Upon consideration, the arbitrator granted the grievances and remained seized of any implementation issues.
Policy grievance dismissed; salary note wage increases apply only to positions within the Fire Branch.
The union filed a policy grievance alleging the employer contravened salary note G29 by denying wage increases to nine employees who performed work for the Aviation and Forest Fire Management Branch during the 2011 fire season.
The employees held home positions outside the Fire Branch.
The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that the clear language of the salary note attached the wage increases to positions 'in the Aviation and Forest Fire Management Branch', and therefore did not apply to employees whose home positions were elsewhere in the Ministry.
Employer's preliminary motion to dismiss harassment and discrimination grievances for lack of prima facie case denied.
The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the union's harassment and discrimination grievances on the basis that there was no prima facie case.
The employer argued the grievances related to letters written to the grievors about conforming with an order, while the union alleged the letters were part of an overall series of events that must be viewed in context.
The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the employer's preliminary motion, allowing the grievances to proceed.
Union directed to provide further particulars; disclosure request denied pending employer's prima facie case motion.
The union filed grievances regarding a change to the employer's policy on the use of ministry vehicles, which required inspectors to keep vehicles at their headquarters rather than at home.
Prior to the hearing on the merits, the employer indicated it would argue the union had not made out a prima facie case and requested further particulars.
The union requested disclosure from the employer.
The Grievance Settlement Board directed the union to provide adequate particulars, finding some alleged facts were not sufficiently particularized.
The Board declined to order the employer to comply with the disclosure request at this stage, as the employer's impending motion could dispose of the matter without a hearing on the merits.
Grievances dismissed as untimely and barred by issue estoppel due to extreme delay.
The grievor filed eight grievances in 2013 relating to a workplace injury sustained in 2006 and the employer's subsequent conduct, including an alleged failure to investigate her complaints and properly maintain vehicles.
The employer raised preliminary objections, arguing the grievances were untimely and barred by issue estoppel, as a previous grievance regarding the 2006 incident was dismissed in 2011.
The Grievance Settlement Board held that the grievances were not continuing in nature and were filed several years beyond the collective agreement's time limits.
The Board declined to extend the time limits under section 48(16) of the Labour Relations Act due to the extreme delay.
The Board also found that the health and safety allegations were barred by issue estoppel, and that the employer's participation in WSIB proceedings was protected by absolute privilege.
All grievances were dismissed.
Job posting grievance dismissed; candidates were relatively equal, making seniority the deciding factor.
The union filed a job posting grievance alleging the employer violated the 'relative equality' clause in Article 6.3 of the collective agreement when it awarded a Senior Field Auditor position to a candidate with greater seniority instead of the grievor.
The grievor, classified as a TA5, argued he had more experience with complex audits than the successful candidate, who was classified as a TA4.
The Grievance Settlement Board found that the successful candidate had been performing TA5-level work and had more relevant experience in the specific area of Electricity Act audits.
The Board concluded the candidates were relatively equal, making seniority the deciding factor, and dismissed the grievance.
Human rights application dismissed for delay as the applicant provided no good faith explanation.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to employment because of disability.
The only remaining allegation was that the applicant was mocked due to an eye disability during a Grievance Settlement Board hearing.
The respondent argued the application should be dismissed for delay, as the alleged incident occurred more than one year before the application was filed.
The Tribunal found that the incident occurred outside the one-year limitation period and the applicant provided no explanation for the delay.
The application was dismissed as the delay was not incurred in good faith.
Consent order issued establishing disclosure deadlines and scheduling protocol for arbitration hearing.
The parties agreed to a protocol for the efficient hearing of two grievances alleging workplace harassment and failure to accommodate.
The Grievance Settlement Board issued a consent order setting deadlines for particulars, disclosure, and the identification of preliminary issues, and directed the scheduling of six hearing dates.
Reactivation granted but most claims dismissed as abuse of process due to prior settlement release.
The applicant sought to reactivate a deferred human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability.
The respondent opposed reactivation, arguing the request was late and the underlying issues had been resolved via Minutes of Settlement at the Grievance Settlement Board, which included a release of Code claims.
The Tribunal granted the reactivation request, finding the 17-day delay was in good faith and caused no prejudice.
However, the Tribunal held that proceeding with the accommodation and remuneration allegations would be an abuse of process given the prior settlement and release.
The Tribunal dismissed those claims but allowed a separate harassment allegation, which was not covered by the settlement, to proceed, ordering the applicant to provide particulars.
Employer waived timeliness objection to grievance referral by failing to raise it promptly.
The Union referred a grievance to arbitration beyond the time limits set out in the collective agreement.
The Employer raised a preliminary objection regarding timeliness.
The Union argued the Employer waived its right to object by failing to raise the issue in a timely manner and by taking fresh steps, including participating in mediation and scheduling hearing dates.
The Grievance Settlement Board found that the Employer's general reservation of rights was insufficient notice of a timeliness objection.
Because the Employer waited many months before specifying its objection, it waived its right to object.
The preliminary objection was dismissed.
