104 total
Grievance dismissed as untimely; nine-year delay not excused despite grievor's mental illness.
The union filed a grievance on behalf of the grievor alleging harassment and discrimination based on disability.
The employer raised a preliminary objection that the grievance, filed more than nine years after the events in question, was untimely.
The union argued the grievor was incapable of filing earlier due to severe mental illness and requested an extension under s. 48(16) of the Labour Relations Act.
The Grievance Settlement Board found that while the grievor suffered from a debilitating mental illness, she had been capable of pursuing a WSIB claim regarding the same events during the delay period.
The Board concluded the union failed to establish a reasonable explanation for the delay and declined to extend the time limit.
The grievance was dismissed as untimely.
Grievances dismissed on preliminary objections as Board lacked jurisdiction over classification disputes under CECBA.
The union filed grievances alleging that the employer's reorganization and reclassification of employees created a poisoned work environment due to misleading communications.
The employer raised preliminary objections, arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction over classification grievances under s. 51 of the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act, and that the matter was already settled by a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA).
The Grievance Settlement Board upheld the preliminary objections, finding it had no jurisdiction to remedy classification grievances and that the parties had already reached a binding agreement regarding the reorganization's impact.
The grievances were dismissed.
Grievance dismissed as untimely; no reasonable grounds to extend time limit after nearly three-year delay.
The union filed a grievance alleging the employer failed to make reasonable provisions for the grievor's health and safety, resulting in a workplace injury.
The grievance was filed approximately two years and nine months after the incident.
The employer raised a preliminary objection that the grievance was untimely.
The arbitrator found that the time for filing began on the date of the injury, and there was no satisfactory explanation for the extreme delay.
The arbitrator declined to exercise discretion under section 48(16) of the Labour Relations Act to extend the time limit, and the grievance was dismissed.
Board ruled Article 9 of the Memorandum of Settlement must be interpreted as advanced by AMAPCEO.
The Grievance Settlement Board revoked its previous decision of October 12, 2011.
Following a conference call and upon the request of the parties for limited reasons, the Board ruled that Article 9 of the Memorandum of Settlement should be interpreted in the manner advanced by AMAPCEO.
The Employer was directed to implement Article 9 accordingly.
Employer's request to adjourn grievance hearing granted while grievor remains on long-term income protection.
The employer requested an adjournment of a scheduled hearing regarding several grievances, including harassment allegations, filed by an employee currently on long-term income protection (LTIP).
The union opposed the request.
The Grievance Settlement Board granted the adjournment, finding little likelihood of progress at the present time, and directed the parties to contact the Board when the grievor is fit to return to work or after four months have elapsed.
Employer's motion to dismiss new grievances denied as prior decision did not grant continuing jurisdiction.
The Employer moved to dismiss over fifty grievances filed by Court Reporters alleging non-compliance with the collective agreement regarding transcript production.
The Employer argued these grievances raised the same issues currently being addressed in the remedial phase of a prior Board decision (Hunt et al.).
The Vice-Chair denied the motion, finding that the prior decision did not give the Board continuing jurisdiction to ensure compliance with the collective agreement, and that the new grievances raised new matters arising from the Employer's ongoing failure to comply with the prior decision.
Employer did not waive its right to raise a preliminary jurisdictional objection regarding untimely grievances.
The Union sought to consolidate three additional grievances at a mediation session.
The Employer agreed subject to preliminary objections, and subsequently objected that the Board lacked jurisdiction because the grievances were referred to arbitration beyond the time limits in the Collective Agreement.
The Union argued the Employer waived its right to object by failing to raise it earlier and by taking a fresh step.
The Board found that the Employer did not waive its right to object, as it had not missed the first opportunity to raise the objection and the 11 business days between the mediation and the formal objection did not constitute a fresh step.
Employer not required to proactively disclose overtime distribution records under collective agreement.
The union brought a preliminary issue regarding the interpretation of article UN 8.2.1 of the collective agreement, which requires the employer to develop fair and equitable methods for distributing overtime.
The union argued this provision implicitly required the employer to provide records and documentation to verify compliance when overtime is assigned.
The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the union's argument, finding that the collective agreement could not be reasonably read to include a duty to provide the requested information, as doing so would improperly add to or expand the agreed-upon terms.
Grievance allowed in part; employer breached selection process rules but outcome unaffected, so no rerun ordered.
The union filed a grievance challenging the results of a job competition for a Special Projects Foreman/Woman position, alleging the employer breached the collective agreement by failing to consider resumes, personnel files, and references.
The employer conceded that the selection process was flawed but argued the flaws did not affect the outcome.
The Grievance Settlement Board found that while the employer breached its obligation to systematically consider all relevant information, the union failed to establish that the grievor's qualifications and abilities were relatively equal to the successful candidate's, even when the omitted information was considered.
The Board issued a declaration that the collective agreement was breached but declined to order the grievor placed in the position or to direct a rerun of the competition.
Grievances for stand-by pay dismissed; remote IT work does not constitute returning to the workplace.
The union filed grievances alleging that IT systems officers were entitled to stand-by pay rather than on-call pay while on an after-hours rotation.
The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the grievances on the basis that the union's particulars did not disclose a prima facie case.
The collective agreement defined stand-by time as requiring an employee to be immediately available to return to the workplace.
The union argued that accessing the employer's network remotely constituted returning to the workplace.
The Grievance Settlement Board rejected this argument, finding that the language explicitly contemplated a physical return to the workplace.
As the union's particulars did not assert that the grievors were required to physically return to the workplace, the motion was granted and the grievances were dismissed.
Grievance for compensating time off dismissed as separate agreement governed overtime and pilot lacked regular hours.
The union filed a grievance alleging that a pilot engaged in firefighting duties was entitled to compensating time off under the collective agreement for hours worked beyond 7.25 hours.
The employer argued that the collective agreement provision did not apply due to a separate Float Agreement governing pilots, and alternatively, that the grievor did not have a 'regularly scheduled work day' as required by the provision.
The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the Float Agreement specifically addressed overtime and compensating leave, thereby precluding the application of the collective agreement provision.
Furthermore, the Board held that due to the irregular nature of the pilot's hours, he did not have a regularly scheduled work day.
Consent order issued clarifying settlement amount and permitting deduction for WSIB benefit recovery.
The parties sought clarification regarding the interpretation and application of a prior settlement dated September 16, 2009.
On consent, the Grievance Settlement Board ordered that the total settlement amount payable was $10,139.73, from which the employer was entitled to deduct $4,339.90 for the recovery of WSIB benefits paid to the grievor prior to November 5, 2009.
The employer was directed to pay the net amount of $5,799.83 to the grievor.
Consent award issued detailing the distribution and posting of a settlement schedule.
The parties reached an agreement regarding the implementation of paragraph 8 of the Minutes of Settlement dated April 9, 2009.
The employer agreed to distribute a hard copy of Schedule A to all employees who worked at the ODSP Mississauga office on that date.
The document will be printed on Ministry letterhead, signed by management and union stewards, and posted in the Brampton and Mississauga ODSP offices.
Termination for use of force substituted with suspension and reinstatement to non-contact position.
The Grievor, a Youth Services Officer, was terminated for allegedly using excessive force and failing to de-escalate a confrontation with a young person who knocked a food tray out of his hands.
The arbitrator found that while the Grievor did not throw the tray or use a headlock, he violated the Use of Force Policy by using force when it was not 'absolutely necessary,' as he could have simply left the room.
Finding termination too severe for a long-service employee with a clean record, the arbitrator substituted a four-week suspension.
However, due to restrictions under the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act regarding employees who apply force to residents, the arbitrator ordered reinstatement to a substantially equivalent position without direct resident contact.
Grievance allowed and youth services officer reinstated where employer failed to prove alleged assault.
The grievor, a Youth Services Officer, was terminated for allegedly punching a restrained youth in the face.
The employer relied on video evidence and an investigator's report.
The arbitrator found the video evidence was inconclusive and consistent with the grievor's explanation that he was grabbing the youth's shoulder.
Eyewitness testimony supported the grievor's version of events.
The employer failed to meet the onus of proving the assault on a balance of probabilities.
The grievance was allowed and the grievor was reinstated with full back pay.
Grievance dismissed; employer did not unreasonably delay workplace accommodation after receiving medical substantiation.
The grievor, an Employer Health Tax Field Auditor, suffered a rotator cuff injury and required workplace accommodation.
She alleged that the employer breached the collective agreement and the Ontario Human Rights Code by unreasonably delaying an ergonomic assessment and the implementation of its recommendations.
The Grievance Settlement Board found that the employer acted promptly once medical substantiation was provided.
Although there was a minor administrative delay in ordering equipment, the employer's overall conduct was reasonable and did not constitute a failure to accommodate.
The grievance was dismissed.
Union ordered on consent to deliver particulars regarding the merits and timeliness of its grievance.
In a grievance arbitration concerning events that occurred several years prior, the employer objected that the grievance was untimely.
The parties agreed to a timetable for the delivery of particulars.
The Grievance Settlement Board issued a consent order directing the union to deliver full written particulars of its allegations of material fact regarding the merits of the grievance and any request to extend time limits by January 21, 2011.
Consent order granted for disclosure of employee absenteeism records subject to confidentiality conditions.
The parties agreed to consolidate an additional grievance and withdraw another.
On consent, the Grievance Settlement Board ordered the disclosure of ASP files and absenteeism records for several employees, subject to strict confidentiality conditions limiting disclosure to Union counsel for the sole purpose of the arbitration.
Employer's preliminary motion to strike union's remedial request for 'post and fill' dismissed.
The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the union's request for a 'post and fill' remedy regarding transcription work allegedly performed by non-employees.
The employer argued the remedy was barred by res judicata, issue estoppel, or abuse of process, relying on a prior Board decision involving the same parties where a similar remedial request was rejected.
The Board dismissed the motion, finding that the prior decision rejected the remedy because it was raised late in the proceedings, not because it was inherently improper.
The Board concluded there was no jurisdictional obstacle to considering the remedy if the grievance succeeded.
Human rights application dismissed as an abuse of process for failing to raise discrimination before the Grievance Settlement Board.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of family status, arguing that the employer's requirement to relocate to Wawa failed to accommodate his son's special needs.
The respondents requested early dismissal.
The Tribunal found that while the Grievance Settlement Board (GSB) had not dealt with the human rights complaint under section 45.1 of the Code, it was an abuse of process for the applicant to challenge the reasonableness of the relocation requirement before the GSB without raising his human rights complaint, only to later pursue it before the Tribunal.
The application was dismissed as an abuse of process and for being filed outside the one-year limitation period.
