23 total
Grievances resolved with ordered workplace accommodations, a three-day work week, and $2,000 in general damages.
The union filed several grievances on behalf of the grievor alleging violations of the Human Rights Code, the Occupational Health and Safety Act, and the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act regarding her workplace accommodation for mental health disabilities.
The Grievance Settlement Board issued a decision resolving all grievances, ordering a period of sick leave for medical adjustment, followed by a structured return to work with specific accommodations including a three-day work week, regular feedback, and external facilitation.
The employer was also ordered to pay $2,000 in general damages to assist in the grievor's recovery.
Request to reactivate deferred human rights application dismissed due to unexplained 11-month delay.
The applicant sought to reactivate a human rights application that had been deferred pending a grievance arbitration.
The request to reactivate was filed 11 months after the arbitration concluded, well past the 60-day time limit in Rule 14.4 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.
The applicant claimed the delay occurred because she believed the union was assisting with her human rights complaint.
The Tribunal found this explanation inconsistent with the evidence, as she had previously retained private counsel and failed to attend a union meeting regarding the arbitration decision.
Finding no credible explanation for the delay, the Tribunal declined to extend the time limit and dismissed the application.
Union granted intervenor status; evidence required to determine if late reactivation request should be granted.
The applicant sought to reactivate a deferred human rights application past the 60-day deadline, claiming she believed her union was assisting her.
The respondents opposed reactivation and sought dismissal under section 45.1 of the Code.
The union requested intervenor status, which the applicant opposed.
The Tribunal granted the union's request to intervene, noting its interest in the employment discrimination application.
The Tribunal also directed the parties to file witness statements regarding the applicant's explanation for the delay, ruling that the applicant had waived solicitor-client privilege by raising the content of discussions with the union.
Grievances dismissed as inarbitrable after employer successfully challenged the Board's jurisdiction.
The union filed grievances on behalf of four employees.
Prior to the scheduled hearing, the employer gave notice of a motion challenging the Board's jurisdiction to deal with the grievances.
The parties agreed to adjourn the hearing and submitted the relevant facts and materials in writing.
The Board concluded that the grievances were inarbitrable and that it lacked jurisdiction.
The grievances were dismissed.
Grievance settled by consent order directing employer to pay grievor $5,000.
The union filed a grievance alleging various violations of the collective agreement.
Following mediation and formal arbitration hearings, the parties reached a joint submission.
The Grievance Settlement Board issued a consent order directing the employer to pay the grievor $5,000 in full and final settlement of all claims.
Grievances allowed after employer admitted to filling a position without a required job posting.
The union filed grievances alleging that the employer filled an Intake Worker position without holding a competition, in violation of the collective agreement.
The parties agreed to proceed via mediation/arbitration and agreed on the facts that the position should have been posted.
The arbitrator allowed the grievances and ordered the employer to post a vacancy for an Intake Worker restricted to certain employees, with back pay awarded if one of the grievors is successful.
Four grievors awarded permanent positions with back pay after employer admitted to incorrectly marking job competition tests.
The union filed grievances on behalf of several employees who were unsuccessful in a job competition for Intake Worker positions.
The employer acknowledged that some written tests were incorrectly marked and rescored them.
Following a review of the amended scores, the parties agreed that four grievors should have been awarded permanent positions.
The arbitrator ordered the employer to place those four grievors in the positions with full back pay, and dismissed the remaining three grievances.
Speech-language pathologist reprimanded and fined $1,000 for unauthorized access to patient health records.
The member, a speech-language pathologist, admitted to professional misconduct for inappropriately accessing the personal health information of patients not under her care at the Ottawa Hospital.
The Discipline Committee accepted an Agreed Statement of Facts and found the member committed professional misconduct by contravening the Personal Health Information Protection Act, 2004 and hospital policy.
The Committee accepted a Joint Submission on Penalty, ordering a reprimand, a $1,000 fine, and publication of the decision with the member's name.
Grievor permitted to seek own referral for independent medical examination required by accommodation settlement.
The union grieved the employer's failure to implement a Memorandum of Settlement regarding the grievor's workplace accommodation.
The settlement required the grievor to undergo an independent medical examination (IME).
The grievor objected to the employer's use of an insurance company to facilitate the IME and the broad scope of the medical release form.
The Grievance Settlement Board ordered that the grievor be permitted to seek a referral from his family doctor to a specialist for the IME.
The Board further ordered that if this process failed, the parties must cooperate to select a medical expert without using the insurance company as a facilitator, and the release form must be approved by the union and the grievor.
Grievance dismissed; discharge upheld for operating a retail business using employer credit card and resources.
The grievor, a hot-line operator with 22 years of service, was discharged for conflict of interest and misuse of government property.
The employer discovered she was operating a retail store using the Ministry's corporate credit card to purchase inventory, accumulating nearly $13,000 in unpaid charges.
Investigations also revealed she used the Ministry's telephone system extensively for her business, worked at her store while on paid short-term sick leave, and used Ministry computers for business purposes.
The Grievance Settlement Board found the grievor blatantly misused employer resources to derive an advantage for her outside business, violating conflict of interest regulations.
The grievance was dismissed and the discharge upheld.
Videotape surveillance of employee on sick leave ruled admissible due to reasonable suspicion of conflict.
The Union grieved the discharge of a hotline operator who was terminated for an alleged conflict of interest involving her ownership of a retail store.
During the investigation, the Employer used videotape surveillance to observe the grievor working at her store while she was on sick leave.
The Union objected to the admissibility of the surveillance evidence, arguing it was an unreasonable intrusion into the grievor's privacy.
The Grievance Settlement Board applied a two-part test and found that the Employer had reasonable cause to suspect a conflict of interest and misuse of sick leave, making the decision to undertake surveillance reasonable.
The evidence was ruled admissible.
Request for in camera hearing denied; public interest in open proceedings outweighs civil suit concerns.
The grievors, correctional officers facing discipline and a civil suit for an alleged assault on an inmate, requested that the Grievance Settlement Board proceedings be held in camera.
They argued that an open hearing would prejudice them in the civil suit and compromise institutional security.
The Board denied the request, emphasizing the strong public interest in open proceedings, particularly in cases involving allegations of assault by correctional officers.
The Board noted that the civil courts would determine the appropriate use of any evidence given at the hearing.
Employer ordered to comply with undertaking to search for accommodated position throughout the OPS.
The union brought a motion alleging the employer abused process by breaching an undertaking to search for suitable positions for the grievor throughout the Ontario Public Service (OPS), rather than just within the Ministry of Health.
The union sought costs, general damages, and an order directing the search.
The Grievance Settlement Board found that the employer had undertaken to search throughout the OPS concurrently with the Ministry search.
The Board directed the employer to identify possible job matches across the OPS by a specified date, but found it premature to award general damages or rule on the adequacy of the search, and reserved judgment on costs.
Discharge for filing false sexual harassment allegations in bad faith mitigated to a lengthy suspension.
The grievor, a long-service employee, was discharged for filing false allegations of sexual assault and harassment against a co-worker in bad faith to secure a job upgrade.
The Grievance Settlement Board found that the grievor's allegations were not credible and were inconsistent with the preponderance of probabilities.
The Board concluded that the grievor filed the complaint in bad faith, which constituted just cause for discipline.
However, considering the grievor's lengthy discipline-free record and management's failure to address the poisoned work environment, the Board substituted the discharge with a lengthy suspension without pay.
Grievance dismissed; 20-day suspension upheld for ferry captain who abandoned wheelhouse during boarding.
The grievor, a ferry captain, was suspended for 20 days after leaving the wheelhouse during boarding without ensuring his replacement was present or that mooring lines were secured.
The ferry subsequently drifted from the dock due to a mechanical failure in the emergency steering system, leaving passengers stranded.
The grievor argued that an oppressive work schedule caused fatigue and a sudden stomach ailment, excusing his departure.
The arbitrator found no medical evidence to support the grievor's claims of fatigue or illness and concluded that the grievor abandoned his post without taking appropriate safety measures.
The grievance was dismissed and the 20-day suspension was upheld.
Employer may require tax auditors to travel back to the office during regular working hours.
The grievor, a tax auditor, claimed travel expenses from the audit location to his residence at the end of the work day, rather than to the office.
The employer required the grievor to travel back to the office during regular working hours, which the union argued violated the collective agreement by treating travel time as work time.
The Grievance Settlement Board held that the employer has the right to require employees to travel during regular working hours as a cost-saving measure, even if it results in less actual audit time.
The grievance was dismissed.
Grievances alleging racial and union activity discrimination in denial of promotional opportunities dismissed for lack of evidence.
The grievor, an administrative secretary, filed grievances alleging that the employer discriminated against her on the basis of race and union activity by denying her training, secondments, and promotional opportunities.
The union argued that the employer's failure to follow through on recommendations from an internal investigation and a grievance response to conduct a performance review and provide training plans justified an inference of discrimination.
The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievances, finding that the grievor's subjective belief of discrimination was insufficient and that there was no objective evidence to support an inference that race or union activity played a role in the employer's decisions.
Grievance dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as the impugned letter was not disciplinary.
The union filed a grievance alleging that a letter dated November 4, 1993, and a subsequent workload arrangement constituted discipline.
The employer raised a preliminary objection that the letter was not disciplinary and was never placed in the grievor's personnel file, meaning the Board lacked jurisdiction.
The Grievance Settlement Board agreed, finding the letter contained no common elements of discipline and was not placed in the file.
The Board also found it lacked jurisdiction to determine the workload issue as there was no allegation of harassment on the face of the grievance.
Declaration issued that employer cannot provide work consistent with grievor's functional abilities and pre-injury earnings.
The Grievance Settlement Board convened a mediation/arbitration regarding the grievor's return to work.
The Vice Chair issued a declaration that the employer was unable to provide work for the grievor that was consistent with her functional abilities and that would restore her pre-injury earnings.
