115 total
Two human rights applications involving overlapping facts and allegations of reprisal consolidated to avoid multiplicity.
The applicant filed two human rights applications against the respondent employer, alleging discrimination and reprisal.
The respondent sought to consolidate the applications, while the applicant opposed consolidation.
The Tribunal applied the Persaud factors and found that the applications involved overlapping facts, witnesses, and a chronological connection.
To avoid a multiplicity of proceedings and the risk of inconsistent results, the Tribunal ordered the applications consolidated.
Six-month suspension substituted for discharge of correctional officer as sufficient corrective penalty.
The grievor, a Correctional Officer, was discharged.
In a previous decision, the Grievance Settlement Board substituted a suspension for the discharge and directed the parties to agree on its length.
The parties could not agree, with the employer seeking a 10-month suspension and the union proposing six months.
The Board determined that a six-month suspension was appropriate, finding it sufficient for deterrence and corrective purposes, and ordered the grievor to be made whole for the period between the end of the suspension and his return to work.
Grievances claiming incentive pay dismissed for lack of jurisdiction absent a collective agreement provision.
The Union filed grievances alleging the Employer violated the collective agreement by failing to provide incentive pay to staff divested through the sales tax reform project, similar to what was provided during a previous corporate tax divestment.
The Employer brought a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, arguing there was no collective agreement provision requiring such incentive pay.
The Grievance Settlement Board agreed with the Employer, finding the claim was a 'me too' argument without a link to a substantial right under the collective agreement, and dismissed the grievances for lack of jurisdiction.
Grievance dismissed as untimely; 14-year delay inherently prejudicial despite recent court decision on related matter.
The complainant, an Operational Manager, filed a grievance 14 years after a 1996 report that he alleged was defamatory and negatively impacted his career and personal life.
The employer raised a preliminary objection that the complaint was out of time and outside the Board's jurisdiction.
The complainant argued the grievance was timely because a 2010 Superior Court decision finding the report defamatory against other managers provided new information.
The Public Service Grievance Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the 14-year delay was too long, inherently prejudicial, and that the 2010 court decision did not constitute a new working condition or term of employment to restart the time limits.
Discharge of correctional officer for WDHP violations not sustained; penalty remitted to parties for suspension.
The grievor, a Correctional Officer, was discharged for violating the Workplace Discrimination and Harassment Policy (WDHP).
The union grieved the discharge, arguing the penalty was excessive compared to other employees who committed similar violations but were only suspended.
The Grievance Settlement Board found that while the grievor's violations were more significant, the essential nature of the violations was not so qualitatively different as to warrant discharge.
The Board declined to sustain the discharge and remitted the matter to the parties to agree on an appropriate suspension.
Board asserts jurisdiction to determine if new positions are substantially the same; orders pre-hearing production.
The Association filed grievances alleging that the Employer's reorganization, which eliminated Facilities Management Coordinator positions and created new Regional Planning & Business Advisor positions, was done in bad faith or, alternatively, that the new positions were substantially the same as the old ones.
The Employer brought a motion objecting to the Board's jurisdiction to hear the alternative argument, asserting the new positions were newly created and thus exempt from posting exceptions.
The Board dismissed the motion, finding it had jurisdiction to determine objectively whether the positions were substantially the same.
The Board also granted the Association's request for pre-hearing production of the new incumbents' work emails and calendars, limiting the scope to a three-month period to balance relevance against the Employer's burden.
Employer ordered to disclose successful candidates' application materials relevant to bad faith allegation.
In a grievance arbitration concerning the surplussing of employees and the creation of new positions, the union alleged the employer's reorganization was a bad faith scheme to 'clean house'.
The union sought disclosure of application materials and personnel files of the individuals selected for interviews and appointments to the new positions.
The employer opposed, arguing it amounted to an improper job competition grievance.
The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the disclosure, finding the requested materials were arguably relevant to the union's bad faith allegation and did not constitute a fishing expedition.
Application alleging breach of settlement dismissed; agreement required job offer, not permanent employment guarantee.
The applicant filed an application alleging the respondent breached a 2004 human rights settlement agreement by eliminating his position as a Tax Administration Manager in 2010.
The applicant argued the settlement guaranteed him permanent employment in that role.
The Tribunal found that the clear language of the settlement only required the respondent to offer the applicant the position, which it did, and did not create an indefinite job guarantee.
The application was dismissed.
Preliminary motion dismissed; Employer's investigation into inappropriate IT use did not violate Memorandum of Understanding.
The Union brought a preliminary motion arguing that the Employer violated a Memorandum of Understanding by continuing an investigation and disciplining the grievor for inappropriate use of information technology.
The Union argued that the exception in the Memorandum allowing investigations to continue required a formal complaint from an employee.
The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the motion, finding that the language of the Memorandum was clear and unambiguous, and did not require a formal complaint to trigger the exception.
Employer's request to adjourn hearing due to insufficient particulars granted.
The employer requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing for a union policy grievance, arguing that the union had not provided sufficient particulars.
The union opposed the request.
Following a conference call, the Vice-Chair granted the adjournment, rescheduling the first day of the hearing to determine if the union can make out a prima facie case.
Retroactive compensation for continuing grievance limited to the date of a prior Board award.
The union filed a policy grievance seeking retroactive compensation for unclassified employees working on the youth side of a correctional facility who were paid at a lower rate.
The parties sought a ruling through mediation-arbitration on how far back the retroactive compensation could extend for grievances filed after a prior Board award on September 7, 2010.
The employer argued for a 30-day limit prior to the grievance filing, while the union sought full retroactivity.
The Vice-Chair ruled that it would be equitable to limit any retroactive claims to the date of the Board's prior award, September 7, 2010.
Employer's motion granted; grievance dismissed as untimely and evidence excluded due to prior settlement.
The employer brought a motion to dismiss a 2006 grievance and exclude evidence of events from 1996 and 1997 at the L'Orignal Jail during the remedial phase of a hearing.
The union sought to introduce the evidence to support its claim for damages, arguing a 2010 agreement allowed all outstanding claims to be heard.
The Grievance Settlement Board granted the employer's motion, finding the 2006 grievance was untimely and the evidence was barred by 1998 minutes of settlement and a previous 2005 board decision excluding the same evidence.
Arbitrator ordered simple interest on lost wages and deduction of LTIP payments to make grievor whole.
Following a decision upholding the grievances, the parties negotiated the remedy but could not agree on two issues regarding lost wages.
The union argued for compound interest and that Long Term Income Protection (LTIP) payments should not be deducted.
The employer argued for simple interest under the collective agreement and that LTIP must be deducted.
The arbitrator ruled in favour of the employer on both issues, finding the collective agreement language on simple interest mandatory and that deducting LTIP aligns with the principle of making the grievor whole.
The employer was ordered to pay $244,242 in lost wages.
Student employees are not entitled to pay-in-lieu of benefits under the collective agreement.
The Union grieved the Employer's unilateral cessation of 'pay in lieu' (PIL) of benefits payments to student employees, a practice that had existed for over 20 years.
The Union argued that PIL was a 'term and condition of employment specifically applicable to students' under Article 33.3 of the collective agreement.
The Grievance Settlement Board held that the collective agreement explicitly limited the provisions applicable to students and did not include PIL payments.
Applying the principle of expressio unius est exclusio alterius, the Board found that the parties specifically included PIL for other fixed-term employees but excluded it for students.
The grievance on this interpretive issue was dismissed, with remaining issues to be set for hearing.
Grievances dismissed as inarbitrable due to complete failure to file them with the employer.
The union referred two grievances to the Grievance Settlement Board alleging that a manager threatened the grievor with death and that management failed to investigate.
The employer raised preliminary objections, arguing the grievances were barred by a prior unfair labour practice settlement and were inarbitrable due to a complete failure to follow the grievance procedure.
The Vice-Chair rejected the estoppel and abuse of process arguments, finding the settlement did not preclude the grievances.
However, the Vice-Chair upheld the objection regarding the grievance procedure, as the grievor completely failed to file the grievances with the employer or follow the required steps.
The grievances were dismissed as inarbitrable.
Employer's preliminary objections to student pay-in-lieu grievances partially granted; untimely referrals to arbitration dismissed.
The Employer raised preliminary objections to the jurisdiction of the Grievance Settlement Board regarding several group and individual grievances filed by student employees over the cessation of vacation and holiday pay-in-lieu (PIL) payments.
The Employer argued the grievances did not raise a prima facie case and improperly expanded the original claims by raising new arguments under Article 33.3 and estoppel.
The Board dismissed this objection, finding the new arguments were permissible legal theories supporting the original grievance.
The Employer also objected to the timeliness of certain grievances.
The Board found the failure to pay PIL was a continuing violation, making the filings timely, but upheld the objection regarding the untimely referral of certain grievances to arbitration, dismissing those specific grievances.
Adjournment granted due to grievor's disruptive conduct, but sine die request denied.
The Union requested an adjournment sine die of a hearing scheduled for August 21, 2009, due to the grievor's disruptive conduct in a previous hearing which made it impossible to proceed.
The Employer opposed the adjournment and requested that the case be completed by written argument.
The Vice-Chair granted the adjournment but refused to adjourn the matter sine die, instead fixing a new hearing date to address the Employer's preliminary objections regarding res judicata and abuse of process.
Union's request for adjournment granted, but rescheduled to a specific date rather than sine die.
The Union requested an adjournment of the hearing scheduled for August 21, 2009, sine die.
The Employer opposed the adjournment and argued the matter should be completed by written submissions.
The Vice-Chair granted the adjournment but not on a sine die basis, rescheduling the hearing to November 13, 2009.
Grievance dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as the Board cannot remedy salary compression between managers and bargaining unit employees.
The grievors, who are managers, filed a grievance alleging discrimination and unfair treatment because they did not receive the same salary increases as the bargaining unit employees they supervise, despite performing the same duties in addition to their managerial responsibilities.
The employer brought a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, arguing it was essentially a classification or salary compression grievance.
The Public Service Grievance Board granted the motion and dismissed the grievance, holding that it lacks jurisdiction to review classification decisions or remedy salary compression absent a breach of a specific policy, term of employment, or evidence of bad faith.
Grievor breached settlement agreement by suing former colleagues for defamation over matters related to his employment.
The employer alleged that the grievor breached a Memorandum of Settlement resolving his wrongful dismissal grievance by launching a civil action for defamation and conspiracy against two former colleagues.
The settlement included a broad release of all claims regarding his past employment, a confidentiality clause, and a non-disparagement clause.
The Public Service Grievance Board found that the civil suit breached the settlement, as it attempted to litigate matters related to his past employment that were fully and finally resolved by the agreement.
The Board issued a declaration of breach and remained seized of the remedial aspects.
