Omar Shahab

The applicant, a Black woman and long-serving employee, alleged racial discrimination when she was unsuccessful in a competition for a Group Leader position, which was awarded to a White woman with less seniority.

She also alleged reprisal based on comments made by her manager regarding her human rights complaint.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant established a prima facie case of discrimination, the respondent provided a credible, non-discriminatory explanation for its decision based on the candidates' performance in a structured interview process.

The Tribunal also found no evidence to support the reprisal allegation.

The application was dismissed.

During a mediation-arbitration process concerning a grievance for unpaid stand-by time, the employer requested an order that the union provide particulars regarding the factual basis of the grievance.

The union did not oppose the request.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the union to provide the requested particulars in writing.

The union filed a grievance asserting that the position of Administrative Coordinator in the Assistant Deputy Minister's office should be included in the bargaining unit.

The employer argued the position was excluded under the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act because the incumbent was employed in a confidential capacity relating to labour relations and had duties constituting a conflict of interest.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the incumbent had regular and material involvement with sensitive labour relations information and effectively authored conflict of interest responses for the Ministry.

The Board concluded the Act did not apply to the position and dismissed the grievance.

The respondent requested that the human rights complaint be dismissed on the basis that the parties had reached an oral settlement agreement.

The complainant agreed to the monetary compensation but refused to sign the draft minutes of settlement due to confidentiality and liability clauses.

The Tribunal found that the parties agreed on the fundamental terms of a monetary payment and a full and final release.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the agreed sum and the complainant to provide the release, resolving the complaint without deciding whether section 49.5 of the Code applies to oral agreements.

The union grieved the results of several job competitions for Worker Adviser positions, alleging the employer violated article 6.3 of the collective agreement by relying exclusively on interview scores and failing to consider the internal candidates' past performance and qualifications.

The Grievance Settlement Board found the selection process fundamentally flawed because the employer failed to review personnel files, performance evaluations, or resumes beyond initial screening.

The Board ordered the retroactive appointment of two grievors who demonstrated they were relatively equal or met the minimum qualifications, and ordered the competitions to be re-run for the other two grievors.

The Union filed grievances alleging that the Ministry of the Attorney General contravened the Collective Agreement by allowing non-ministry employees to perform bargaining unit work in the Victim/Witness Program.

On consent of the parties, the Grievance Settlement Board ordered the Employer to produce all arguably relevant documentation to Union counsel by June 30, 2010, subject to confidentiality restrictions.

The respondents raised preliminary objections to a transitional human rights application, arguing it was not completed before the June 30, 2009 statutory deadline and should alternatively be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal exercised its discretion to waive its technical rules, finding that the applicant had filed sufficient material prior to the deadline to indicate an intention to make an application, despite failing to deliver the proper form to the respondents at that time.

The Tribunal directed that a preliminary hearing be scheduled to address the section 45.1 and abuse of process arguments, and ordered the applicant to file written submissions or face dismissal of the application.

The Employer raised a preliminary objection to the Board's jurisdiction to hear a group grievance filed by Employment Standard Officers regarding a new workload quota.

The Employer argued the grievance alleged a free-standing violation of management rights, over which the Board lacks jurisdiction, and that the Union's subsequent reliance on health and safety and discipline provisions constituted an improper expansion of the grievance.

The Board agreed, finding that even on a liberal reading, the original written grievance could not be construed to encompass health and safety or discipline claims.

As the Board has no jurisdiction to review a free-standing exercise of management rights for reasonableness, the Employer's preliminary motion was granted and the grievance was dismissed.

The Union filed a grievance alleging that the Employer compromised the integrity of the bargaining unit by allowing outside contractors (Toledo-Mettler staff) to direct commercial vehicles through weigh scales during maintenance and testing.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the contractors were performing maintenance and testing rather than the enforcement duties normally performed by Transportation Enforcement Officers.

The Board also concluded that the volume of work performed by the contractors was de minimis.

The union filed a grievance against the employer.

Following an extensive mediation-arbitration process, the union withdrew the grievance in consideration of certain undertakings by the employer.

The Grievance Settlement Board formally terminated the proceedings.

Following an extensive mediation-arbitration process, the union withdrew the grievance in consideration of certain undertakings by the employer.

The Grievance Settlement Board terminated the proceedings.

The union filed a grievance alleging that the employer contravened the collective agreement by paying overtime to unclassified hosts under article 31.A.3.1(d) rather than sub-article (c).

The issue was whether the unclassified hosts had 'regularly scheduled work days'.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that while schedules were posted in advance, the actual hours worked varied significantly due to unpredictable operational needs, such as after-hours events and extended opening hours.

Consequently, the employees did not work regularly scheduled days on an ongoing and consistent basis.

The grievance was dismissed, affirming the employer's application of sub-article (d).

The union sought an extension of time limits under s. 48(16) of the Labour Relations Act to file a grievance alleging the employer's conduct contributed to the grievor's alcoholism and depression.

The grievance was filed over two years late.

The union argued the grievor lacked the mental capacity to file earlier due to his illness.

The arbitrator rejected the medical opinion supporting incapacity, finding it inconsistent with the grievor's actions during the delay period, such as filing other grievances and writing a detailed letter to his insurer.

Finding no reasonable explanation for the extreme delay, the arbitrator declined to extend the time limits and dismissed the grievance as inarbitrable.

The complainant filed a grievance after receiving a three-day suspension.

The Public Service Grievance Board considered the submissions and material, and granted the grievance.

Remedial issues were remitted to the parties, with the Board remaining seized if they are unable to resolve them.

The applicant, an Operational Manager, alleged discrimination on the basis of disability after he was denied a performance award because he did not meet the 12-week active work eligibility requirement due to a WSIB leave.

The applicant argued that the policy was discriminatory because leaves mandated by the Employment Standards Act (such as pregnancy and parental leaves) were counted towards the eligibility period.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the performance award was a compensation benefit tied to work performed.

The Tribunal held that following the statutory requirements of the Employment Standards Act to count certain leaves does not make the failure to count WSIB leaves discriminatory.

The union filed a grievance claiming that a water bomber pilot was entitled to call back pay under the collective agreement when he was required to work prior to his scheduled start time.

The employer argued that the specific terms of the CL-415 Pilot/Co-Pilot Agreement, which amended the collective agreement, disentitled pilots to call back pay.

The arbitrator found that the plain language of the Pilot Agreement provided that all hours worked on a regular workday, including those before the normal start time, were to be accumulated at straight time and credited towards the annual work requirement.

The grievance was dismissed.

The union filed a grievance alleging the employer failed to provide a healthy and safe workplace, contributing to the grievor's alcohol abuse and depression.

The employer raised preliminary objections that the grievance was untimely and barred by prior settlements of similar grievances.

The union argued that the time limits should be extended under s. 48(16) of the Labour Relations Act and the prior settlements reopened because the grievor lacked the mental capacity to appreciate the connection between the workplace stressors and his illness at the time.

The Vice-Chair held that there was insufficient evidence to rule on the preliminary objections and directed that further medical evidence and submissions be heard before determining arbitrability.

In a grievance arbitration under the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act, the parties agreed to exchange particulars and productions prior to the hearing.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued a consent order detailing the requirements and a timetable for the exchange of written particulars and documents.

The order included specific directions for the employer to produce documents related to the grievor's job matching and certain job competitions.

The union filed a grievance asserting that the position of Administrative Coordinator should be included in the bargaining unit.

The employer brought a motion requesting that the Grievance Settlement Board defer the proceedings pending a determination by the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) on whether the person filling the position is an employee under the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act.

The Board found that it had concurrent jurisdiction with the OLRB to determine employee status.

Considering the delay that deferral would cause and the Board's expertise in public sector labour relations, the Board declined to exercise its discretion to defer to the OLRB and dismissed the employer's motion.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision that substituted a lengthy suspension without pay for the grievor's dismissal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application on two grounds.

First, the applicant's unexplained delay of over a year and a half in perfecting the application caused prejudice to the respondent and warranted dismissal.

Second, the arbitrator's decision to deny back wages was entirely reasonable and within his broad remedial jurisdiction under the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The court found no denial of procedural fairness, as the issue of penalty was in play throughout the hearing.