104 total
Declaration issued confirming employer breached settlement terms after employer conceded the violations.
The union alleged that the employer breached the terms of a settlement agreement that had been resolved over ten years prior, citing incidents in July and August 2010 and November 2012.
The union sought only declaratory relief.
During a teleconference, the employer conceded the breaches and did not object to the requested relief.
The Grievance Settlement Board issued a declaration that the employer breached the settlement terms, with no other relief ordered.
Union ordered to provide full written particulars of grievances and address overlap with prior award.
The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the Union to provide full written particulars of eight grievances filed by the grievor.
The Union was directed to specify whether the grievances raised allegations different from those decided in a previous award, and if so, why they were not raised earlier.
The Employer was ordered to advise of any preliminary objections and respond to disclosure requests.
Grievance dismissed; reimbursement for diagnostic psychological assessment is subject to the collective agreement's cap on psychological services.
The union filed a grievance claiming that the cost of a psychological assessment for a member's child, which resulted in an autism diagnosis, should be reimbursed at 100% as a diagnostic procedure under the collective agreement.
The employer had reimbursed the claim under the capped provision for psychological services.
The Grievance Settlement Board found that while the assessment was a diagnostic procedure, the collective agreement and a subsequent implementation agreement intended for the cap on psychological services to apply to such procedures when performed by a psychologist.
The grievance was dismissed.
Board confirms jurisdiction to hear ASMPP confidentiality grievance and issues procedural directions.
The Grievance Settlement Board issued a procedural decision regarding a grievance concerning confidentiality under the Attendance Support and Management Program Policy (ASMPP).
The Board confirmed its authority to address issues related to how medical records are sought, maintained, and used, as well as how employees are notified about the program.
The employer was directed that it is not required to respond to 31 questions previously requested, and a further conference call will be scheduled to determine the next steps.
Human rights application dismissed as abuse of process where applicant previously pled guilty to related obstruction charge.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging racial discrimination and reprisal by Ministry of the Environment officers during a vehicle emissions stop and subsequent obstruction charge.
The applicant had previously pled guilty to the obstruction charge, admitting facts that included a non-discriminatory reason for the vehicle stop.
The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that allowing the applicant to re-litigate the facts underlying his guilty plea would be an abuse of process, and that his additional reprisal allegations had no reasonable prospect of success.
Employer ordered to pay unremitted union dues and pension interest penalties for misclassified court reporters.
The parties sought clarification on three remedial issues following a prior decision finding that the Employer improperly treated Court Reporters as independent contractors for transcript production.
The Grievance Settlement Board held that while transcript production expenses should be factored into the make-whole remedy, the calculation must be done on an overall rather than year-by-year basis.
The Board further ordered the Employer to pay unremitted union dues plus interest, applying the remedy typical for contracting-out violations.
Finally, regarding pension losses, the Board held that the employee is responsible for her share of missed contributions, but the Employer must pay its share plus any interest penalties assessed by the pension trust.
Applicant's request for production of documents granted as they met the threshold of arguable relevance.
The applicant, a former employee of the Ontario Public Service, brought a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal.
In this interim decision, the applicant requested the production of various documents to support his theory that the respondents' post-settlement actions were tainted with discrimination and an intent to enact a reprisal.
The Tribunal found that the requested documents met the low threshold of arguable relevance, as they could shed light on the respondents' alleged attitude toward the applicant and the reasons for disbanding his division.
The request for production was granted.
Grievance dismissed; union failed to prove that the assigned work resulted in overtime.
The union filed a grievance alleging that the employer bypassed the grievor and assigned an overtime opportunity to an employee with less seniority.
The parties requested the Board to initially determine whether overtime was actually performed on the day in question.
The assigned employee testified that he completed the work within his regular 8-hour shift by taking the ministry truck home the night before and driving directly to the destination, exceeding the speed limit.
The Board accepted the employee's uncontradicted testimony and concluded that no overtime was worked.
Group grievance regarding management's exercise of rights with respect to parking dismissed.
The union filed a group grievance alleging that management improperly exercised its rights with respect to parking.
The Grievance Settlement Board reviewed the facts in light of the collective agreement and found no violation.
Board orders employer to cease treating court reporters as independent contractors and apply collective agreement.
The union filed a policy grievance alleging the employer violated the collective agreement by failing to apply it to court reporters who prepare and certify transcripts.
The employer conceded that the work was bargaining unit work and that it was in violation of the collective agreement by treating the reporters as independent contractors, but argued the Board lacked jurisdiction to order compliance because it intended to contract out the work.
The Board rejected the employer's arguments based on res judicata and management rights, finding it had the statutory mandate to provide a final and binding settlement to the dispute.
The Board ordered the employer to cease its violation and immediately apply the collective agreement to the court reporters performing the transcript work.
Tribunal dismisses settled allegations but allows reprisal claims regarding restructuring and termination to proceed.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal following the settlement of an earlier complaint.
The respondents requested that the application be dismissed on various grounds, including that parts were covered by the prior settlement, lacked particulars, or were out of time.
The Tribunal dismissed the allegations regarding the delay in appointment and the failure to implement settlement terms regarding selection panels.
However, the Tribunal allowed the allegations concerning the restructuring of the applicant's department, underresourcing, and his subsequent termination to proceed, finding they constituted a series of incidents not barred by delay.
Most personal respondents were removed, except for one against whom specific allegations of reprisal were made.
Interim relief denied where liability conceded and only remedy remained to be determined.
The union sought interim relief directing the employer to apply the collective agreement to court reporters performing transcript preparation and certification work.
The employer conceded liability, acknowledging it was in violation of the collective agreement, but contested the Board's jurisdiction to order the requested remedy.
The Grievance Settlement Board denied the application for interim relief, reasoning that since liability was conceded and a hearing on the employer's preliminary motions regarding remedy was imminent, an interim order would effectively be a final cease and desist order rather than true interim relief pending a determination on the merits.
Arbitrator rules on post-reinstatement compensation issues, denying consequential damages but ordering clarification on tax allocations.
The union sought rulings on several issues regarding the grievor's reinstatement and compensation.
The arbitrator denied the grievor's claim for credit card interest, utility charges, and costs associated with cashing in an RRSP, finding that the collective agreement's interest provision comprehensively covered the issue.
The arbitrator ruled that the grievor should be reimbursed for any EI late payment penalties incurred by the employer.
Claims regarding premium payments during an interim unassigned period were deferred pending a future ruling on the appropriateness of the grievor's eventual assignment.
The employer was ordered to provide a detailed explanation of the grievor's T4 and retro pay allocation to address tax burden concerns.
Union's motion to exclude employer's evidence about practices at other courts denied as arguably relevant.
In a grievance arbitration concerning whether agency staff were performing bargaining unit work at a specific court, the parties agreed to proceed first with the issue at that specific court.
The employer sought to introduce evidence regarding the work performed by similar staff at other courts across the province.
The union objected, arguing the evidence was irrelevant and contrary to their agreement to focus on the single court.
The arbitrator dismissed the union's objection, finding the evidence arguably relevant to determining what constitutes bargaining unit work, and noting the agreement did not explicitly preclude such evidence.
Human rights application deferred pending conclusion of concurrent Grievance Settlement Board proceeding on same issues.
The respondent requested to defer the applicant's human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability, pending a proceeding before the Grievance Settlement Board (GSB).
The Tribunal found a substantive overlap between the issues raised in the application and the GSB proceeding, specifically regarding whether the position offered by the respondent accommodated the applicant's medical restrictions.
To avoid concurrent proceedings and inconsistent decisions, the Tribunal ordered the deferral of the application pending the conclusion of the GSB proceedings.
Board establishes transcript production rates and rules on remedial entitlements for court reporters performing bargaining unit work.
The Grievance Settlement Board determined the remedial consequences of its prior finding that the preparation and certification of transcripts by court reporters is bargaining unit work.
The Board established a graduated page-per-hour rate for transcript production based on experience.
It dismissed the union's claim that the grievor should have been converted to full-time status, finding the employer had not determined a continuing need for full-time work.
The Board also held that the grievor was generally not entitled to premium payments like overtime or shift premiums unless specifically authorized.
Finally, the Board ruled that transcript income earned under regulation must be offset against any wages owed, but rejected the employer's argument that it should benefit from the grievor's tax savings as an independent contractor.
Motion to enforce settlement dismissed as no consensus ad idem was reached before offer revocation.
The Association brought a motion seeking a declaration that a grievance regarding the complainant's termination had been settled during mediation.
The parties had agreed on most terms, but the employer insisted on a 'no application clause' which the Association rejected.
The Association made a counter-offer excluding the clause, which the employer rejected before ultimately withdrawing its offer to settle.
The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the motion, finding that no consensus ad idem had been reached on the terms of a settlement before the employer revoked its offer.
Grievances regarding independent medical evaluations consolidated with related matter before the Grievance Settlement Board.
Three Correctional Officers filed grievances alleging violations of the Collective Agreement, including anti-union animus, after the Employer demanded they undergo an Independent Medical Evaluation.
At the hearing, it became apparent that the evidence would overlap with another matter involving the same parties before the same Vice-Chair.
With the agreement of counsel, the Vice-Chair ordered the matters consolidated to avoid hearing the cases separately.
Correctional officer's discharge upheld for failing to disclose relationship with an ex-offender and acting as his surety.
The grievor, a fixed-term Correctional Officer, was discharged for failing to disclose her relationship with an ex-offender, renting her condominium to him, and acting as his surety.
The Union conceded that discipline was warranted but argued that discharge was too severe, seeking a suspension instead.
The Grievance Settlement Board found that the grievor's sustained failure to report the relationship over many months constituted a significant breach of trust and a violation of safety and security policies.
The Board concluded that the grievor's remorse was insufficient to rebuild the employment relationship and dismissed the grievance, upholding the discharge.
Employer's request for production of reply witnesses' transcript invoices granted, but request for tax returns denied.
In a grievance arbitration, the Employer requested the production of transcript invoices and tax returns of Court Reporters whom the Union intended to call as reply witnesses.
The Employer sought the documents to assess the witnesses' experience and speed in preparing transcripts, and to potentially challenge their credibility by comparing reported income to invoices.
The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the production of the transcript invoices, finding them arguably relevant to the witnesses' experience and transcript production volume.
However, the Board denied the request for tax returns, characterizing it as an improper fishing expedition barred by the collateral fact rule.
