Paul Meier

The union filed grievances alleging that a letter dismissing a workplace harassment complaint contained defamatory statements about the grievor and was distributed too widely.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the distribution of the letter to relevant management and human resources personnel was reasonable.

The Board held that the communication was protected by qualified privilege, as the author and recipients had a legitimate interest in the matter, and the union failed to establish malice to defeat the privilege.

The grievances were denied.

The employer alleged that the grievor breached a Memorandum of Settlement resolving his dismissal grievance by launching a civil action against two civil servants.

The employer requested that the Public Service Grievance Board exercise its retained jurisdiction to hear the breach claim.

The grievor argued the Board should decline jurisdiction in deference to the concurrent jurisdiction of the courts over the civil action.

The Vice-Chair held that the Board had jurisdiction pursuant to the settlement agreement and declined to defer to the court, noting the employer was not yet a party to the civil action and the remedy for the alleged breach was not before the court.

The parties agreed to proceed by way of written submissions.

The Union failed to provide submissions in accordance with the established timeline.

The Employer requested that the grievance be dismissed, and the Union did not respond.

The grievance was dismissed.

During a grievance arbitration regarding workplace accommodation, the employer requested disclosure of a notebook kept by the grievor.

The union resisted disclosure, claiming litigation privilege because the grievor recorded the notes anticipating her grievances would proceed.

The arbitrator held that litigation privilege protects materials prepared with the dominant purpose of litigation, such as preparing a position, but does not extend to mere factual recordings of events as they occur.

Since the notebook contained factual notes of events about which the grievor had testified, it was not privileged and was ordered to be disclosed.

In the course of an arbitration, the employer sought disclosure of notes contained in the grievor's diary.

The Grievance Settlement Board ruled that any notes recording events, conversations, or interactions between the grievor and the employer about which she testified or will testify are not protected by litigation privilege.

The union was directed to disclose such notes, with unrelated information to be excluded.

The union filed grievances on behalf of three Air Quality Analysts (AQAs) after the employer reclassified both AQAs and Water Group Leaders (WGLs) to Scientist 4, but only temporarily assigned the WGLs to Acting Geoscientist 4, resulting in higher pay for the WGLs.

The union argued this differential treatment violated the collective agreement by breaching an implied duty of reasonableness and was motivated by anti-union animus against the grievors.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that under the Weber doctrine, it lacked jurisdiction to review the exercise of management rights for reasonableness unless the action impacted an express or implied right under the collective agreement, which was not established here.

Furthermore, the Board found no evidence that the employer's decision was tainted by anti-union animus, concluding it was driven by legitimate business concerns regarding the recruitment and retention of water scientists.

In an interim decision on an evidentiary issue, the union sought to introduce evidence of settlement discussions between the grievor and the employer in its reply evidence.

The employer objected, arguing the discussions were privileged, irrelevant, and beyond the proper scope of reply.

The Grievance Settlement Board upheld the employer's objection, finding that the evidence of settlement discussions was not relevant to the issues in dispute, as the mere fact that settlement discussions occurred does not support an inference of an admission of liability.

The employer brought a pre-hearing application to dismiss two grievances filed by the union on behalf of an employee.

The grievances alleged that a manager's letter, which responded to a workplace harassment complaint and detailed past unsustained allegations against the grievor, was defamatory and improperly distributed.

The employer argued the Board lacked jurisdiction over defamation claims and that no prima facie breach of the collective agreement was established.

Applying the Supreme Court's test in Weber, the Vice-Chair found that the essential character of the dispute arose from the collective agreement, as the letter was written by a manager communicating a workplace problem and implicated provisions regarding discipline, discrimination, and health and safety.

The employer's preliminary objection was dismissed.

In a grievance alleging improper surplusing, the union identified a single position it asserted the grievor was qualified to assume.

At the conclusion of the union's evidence regarding the grievor's capability to meet the minimal requirements of that position, the employer moved for a non-suit.

Applying the standard that a responding party need only establish a prima facie case, the Grievance Settlement Board found that some evidence existed to support the union's claim.

The employer's non-suit motion was dismissed.

The union grieved that the employer violated the collective agreement by denying correctional officers at a youth centre paid rest and meal breaks away from their direct duties.

The employer brought a preliminary application to dismiss the grievances without a hearing on the merits.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the collective agreement provisions relied upon by the union did not require formal, paid breaks away from residents, consistent with prior jurisprudence.

The Board also found that the union's particulars failed to establish facts that would demonstrate a risk to health and safety under Article 9.

The preliminary application was allowed and the grievances were dismissed.

During a grievance arbitration regarding workplace harassment based on sexual orientation, the employer indicated it would seek damages against the union if found liable, alleging a union president was the main harasser.

The union brought a motion arguing the board lacked jurisdiction to hear what amounted to a counterclaim without a formal grievance, and a second motion seeking an order preventing adverse findings against the union.

The Grievance Settlement Board granted the first motion, finding it had no jurisdiction to hear an entirely different matter not properly grieved by the employer.

The board dismissed the second motion, holding that refusing to make adverse findings before hearing all evidence would be a denial of fairness.

The union filed grievances alleging that the employer's decision to temporarily assign only Water Group Leaders as Acting Geoscientist 4, and not Air Quality Analysts, was arbitrary, discriminatory, and motivated by improper considerations including reprisal for union activity.

After the union closed its case, the employer moved for a non-suit.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the motion, finding that the union had met the low threshold of presenting 'some evidence' to support its claims, thereby requiring the employer to answer the case.

The union applied to consolidate two new grievances with three existing grievances already before the Board.

The existing grievances related to a letter and training opportunities, while the new grievances alleged a death threat from a supervisor and management's failure to investigate.

The Board found that the new grievances did not share common questions of fact or law with the existing ones, as they involved a discrete episode and different individuals.

The motion to consolidate was dismissed.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the employer to pay the grievor $6,204.78, minus statutory deductions, for outstanding vacation credits.

The parties agreed that this payment satisfied all outstanding issues regarding the implementation of their memorandum of settlement, rendering the Board functus officio.

In an interim order regarding multiple consolidated grievances, the Grievance Settlement Board noted that eight of eleven grievances were finalized by settlement or withdrawal.

For the remaining three grievances, the Board ordered the union to provide particulars by May 24, 2006.

A request to consolidate two additional grievances was scheduled for a teleconference.