Paul Meier

The Association grieved the Employer's request that the grievor have her doctor complete an Employee Health Information Form while she was receiving Short Term Sickness Plan (STSP) benefits, arguing that Article 37 of the collective agreement constituted a complete code regarding medical information requests.

The arbitrator held that Article 37 does not constitute a complete code, finding that the provision of a medical certificate is a necessary but not sufficient condition for STSP entitlement, and does not preclude the Employer from requesting additional information if circumstances warrant.

On the secondary issue of the order of proceedings, the arbitrator directed the Employer to proceed first with its evidence, as the reasons for requesting additional information lay within its knowledge.

The employer brought a motion to dismiss a grievance filed by a junior employee claiming a right to bump into a Dispute Resolution Officer position.

The employer argued that the claim was barred by a settlement agreement reached with a more senior employee regarding the same position, which contained a broad release clause.

The Arbitrator dismissed the motion, finding that the settlement agreement explicitly applied only to the disputes filed by the senior employee and did not extinguish the bumping rights of other employees.

The Association raised preliminary issues regarding the Employer's request for additional medical information from the grievor while she was receiving Short Term Sickness Plan (STSP) benefits.

The Association argued that Article 37 of the collective agreement constituted a complete code for medical information requests and that the Employer should proceed first with its evidence.

The Arbitrator issued a bottom-line decision, finding that Article 37 does not constitute a complete code, but ordering the Employer to proceed first with its evidence.

The complainant, a civilian manager with the OPP, sought interim relief pending the arbitration of his complaint regarding a paid suspension and alleged workplace misconduct by his superiors.

He requested reimbursement for travel expenses related to a secondment, the suspension of the individuals he accused of misconduct, and payment of his legal fees.

The Public Service Grievance Board denied the request, finding that the complainant failed to establish that the extraordinary remedy of interim relief was warranted.

The Board noted that its remedial powers would be sufficient to fashion an appropriate remedy following a full hearing on the merits if the complaint succeeds.

The complainant, a Sergeant with 26 years of service, was terminated for fabricating and submitting false receipts for relocation expenses.

The complainant admitted to creating some receipts and his spouse created others, which included forged signatures and appropriated business names.

The complainant claimed he was following advice to create a 'paper trail' for cash payments to individuals who were not registered businesses.

The Public Service Grievance Board found the complainant's actions were deliberate, deceitful, and motivated by a sense of entitlement to maximum benefits rather than actual expenses incurred.

Given the complainant's failure to take responsibility and his lack of candour during the investigation and hearing, the Board concluded the employment relationship was irreparably severed and upheld the termination.

In the context of a termination grievance, the parties failed to reach a settlement and proceeded to schedule arbitration dates.

Following discussions on process issues, the arbitrator issued an interim decision ordering the grievor to produce his cellular telephone records for a specific date, including calls, emails, text messages, and internet history logs.

The grievor was directed to obtain these records from his service provider if necessary and provide them to the union's counsel.

The Arbitrator issued case management directions regarding grievances alleging discrimination and failure to accommodate.

The directions established timelines for initial production of documents, the filing of declarations in lieu of oral evidence in chief, and written representations.

The Arbitrator also set strict time limits for oral openings, cross-examinations, re-examinations, and final arguments at the hearing, and outlined the procedure for resolving preliminary issues prior to the hearing.

The employer requested disclosure of Crown Brief records in a related criminal matter for use in a grievance arbitration.

On consent of the parties, the Public Service Grievance Board ordered the Crown to disclose specific statements from the Crown Brief to the employer's counsel, subject to the Wagg screening process.

The Board further ordered that the records be shared with the employee's counsel and sealed from the public record pursuant to the Public Service of Ontario Act, 2006 and the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The Association filed a grievance regarding the appropriate adjustment of the Long Term Income Protection (LTIP) benefit entitlement for the 2014 calendar year.

The collective agreement transitioned from indexing LTIP increases to the Consumer Price Index (CPI) to indexing them to active employee wage increases, effective January 1, 2015.

The employer argued that the 2014 increase should be based on the wage increase (which was zero), while the Association argued it should be based on the 2014 CPI increase, applied in 2015.

The Grievance Settlement Board upheld the grievance, finding that the clear language of the collective agreement maintained CPI indexing until December 31, 2014, meaning the 2015 payments must reflect the 2014 CPI increase.

The Grievance Settlement Board held a case management conference call to set procedural directions for two related grievances where the interests of the grievors were partially adverse.

The Vice-Chair issued directions requiring the evidence in chief to take the form of declarations, setting limits on the time for oral evidence and cross-examination, and establishing a schedule for the exchange of documents and declarations.

The procedure was inspired by the summary trial process under Rule 76.12 of the Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure.

The employer brought a motion to bifurcate the hearing of a union grievance concerning unilateral changes to post-retirement benefits.

The employer sought to have the Board first hear and determine its motion that the union had not made out a prima facie case for its contractual claims, based solely on the language of the collective agreement without extrinsic evidence.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the motion for bifurcation, finding that the union was entitled to adduce extrinsic evidence to support its position that post-retirement benefits were implicitly incorporated into the collective agreement.

The Board concluded that bifurcation would not result in efficiency, as the issues were intertwined and a decision on the preliminary motion would not dispose of the entire grievance, and would be unfair to the union.

The union grieved the denial of a second pair of orthotics for an accommodated employee and sought vacation credits for time the employee spent on long-term disability.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the orthotics grievance, finding the employee did not work in a correctional institution as required by the collective agreement, and the claim was barred by a full and final release in a Memorandum of Settlement.

The Board also granted the employer's motion to dismiss the vacation credits claim, ruling it was functus officio because the claim was raised after a final and binding award on remedies had already been issued.

The grievor filed grievances alleging the Employer failed to accommodate his disability by denying him health reassignment to three disputed positions: Customer Care Team Advisor, Administrative Assistant, and Correspondence Coordinator.

The parties agreed to a written hearing protocol to determine solely whether the grievor was qualified for these positions.

The Vice-Chair assessed the grievor's skills and experience against the minimum necessary qualifications for each role.

The Vice-Chair found the grievor was not qualified for the Customer Care Team Advisor or Correspondence Coordinator positions, dismissing those portions of the grievances.

However, the Vice-Chair concluded the grievor possessed the minimum necessary qualifications for the Administrative Assistant position, remitting that matter back to the parties for discussion.

The applicant, who had a disability, alleged discrimination and reprisal after his employer declared him surplus following a workforce adjustment initiative.

The applicant refused to attend the hearing, requesting a decision based on written materials.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's disability did not entitle him to bypass surplus procedures and be placed directly into a permanent position.

The employer appropriately accommodated the applicant by deferring his surplus job search period while he was medically unable to participate.

The application was dismissed for lack of evidence supporting discrimination or reprisal.

The Union sought clarification and production of additional documents regarding the implementation of a Memorandum of Settlement.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the Employer to investigate and produce arguably relevant documents.

To expedite the hearing, the Board directed the Union to prepare a summary of work assignments and imposed confidentiality conditions on the produced documents, including an implied undertaking and a restriction that the Complainant not receive copies of the documents.

The union filed grievances on behalf of two employees regarding the employer's failure to provide a scent-free work environment and an alleged breach of privacy during a meeting about a scent complaint.

The parties resolved most issues but the union sought damages for the delay in addressing the scent issues and for the privacy breach.

The Grievance Settlement Board denied the request for damages, finding that the employer and the Joint Health and Safety Committee had engaged in good faith efforts to address the complex scent issues, and that the alleged privacy breach was on the lower end of the scale and occurred during a good faith effort to resolve a complaint.

The Union grieved that the Employer breached a Memorandum of Settlement by paying the grievor at her current rate of pay rather than placing her on the wage grid corresponding to her agreed-upon continuous service date.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the clear and unambiguous language of the settlement agreement expressly preserved the grievor's current conditions of employment, which included her current rate of pay and progression.

During a grievance arbitration hearing scheduled to deal with remedial issues, the Employer sought an order for the production of certain medical documentation.

The Union opposed the request.

The Vice-Chair determined it was appropriate to order the production sought by the Employer and directed the Union to seek production of specific medical records from various healthcare providers.

The union brought a grievance alleging that the Ministry violated the collective agreement by acting in an arbitrary, discriminatory, and bad faith manner when it decided to surplus the grievors.

During the proceedings, a dispute arose regarding disclosure.

Following a conference call, the Vice-Chair ordered the Ministry to produce notes, emails, and other documentation pertaining to the posting of certain positions, the elimination of the grievors' positions, and discussions between specific management personnel regarding the decision.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding requested the production of documents, a desk review instead of a hearing, and an adjournment based on medical reasons.

The Tribunal treated the document request as a request for reconsideration of a prior order and granted it in part, ordering the respondent to produce specific emails related to the applicant's surplus status.

The requests for a desk review and an adjournment were denied, the latter due to insufficient medical information.

The applicant was given a deadline to respond to the respondent's request to declare him a vexatious litigant.