Peter Dailleboust

The Employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss two grievances alleging failure to convert fixed-term employees to classified status, arguing the particulars disclosed no prima facie case.

The Union alleged the Employer acted in bad faith by manipulating work assignments to prevent the grievors from reaching the 18-month threshold required for conversion under the collective agreement.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the work performed in different classifications was not the 'same work' and that the Employer was not obligated to extend contracts.

The Board concluded the particulars did not establish bad faith or a violation of the collective agreement, and dismissed the grievances.

The grievor, a Risk and Assurance Consultant, was discharged for using government IT resources to send personal emails related to her civil lawsuit against the Crown, blind-copying senior government officials, and failing to cooperate with the subsequent investigation.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that while the grievor's conduct warranted discipline, discharge was an excessive response given her prior disciplinary record of a 10-day suspension.

The Board substituted a 20-day suspension and ordered reinstatement without compensation, rejecting the employer's request for damages in lieu of reinstatement.

The applicant alleged discrimination based on disability and age regarding a work location transfer.

In a case management conference, the respondent sought to exclude portions of the applicant's anticipated evidence, arguing the issues were resolved in a prior Grievance Settlement Board (GSB) settlement.

The Tribunal ruled that evidence regarding the HR advisor's actions was admissible as it was unrelated to the GSB grievances.

However, evidence regarding alleged misrepresentations about severance pay was dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, as it was appropriately dealt with by the GSB settlement.

The union filed a grievance alleging that the grievor, an employee of the Windsor Central Ambulance Communications Centre, was improperly scheduled for shifts, resulting in 160 hours of lost time.

Following an expedited hearing, the Grievance Settlement Board issued a ruling without reasons, ordering the employer to compensate the grievor for the 160 hours of lost time and to schedule her for shifts pursuant to standard procedures going forward.

Three correctional officers grieved their discharges.

One officer was discharged for slapping an inmate during a strip search and covering it up, while the other two were discharged for witnessing the slap and covering it up.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the slap did occur, relying on the testimony of another officer who came forward despite the 'code of silence'.

The Board upheld the discharge of the officer who slapped the inmate due to the serious nature of excessive force and his continued denial.

However, the Board mitigated the discharges of the other two officers to reinstatement without compensation, benefits, or accumulation of seniority, given their long and unblemished service records.

The union filed a grievance alleging that the employer violated the collective agreement by allowing certain employees to work fewer hours than scheduled under their compressed work week agreements, while requiring the grievor to work his full hours.

The employer brought a motion to summarily dismiss the grievance for failing to establish a prima facie case.

The Grievance Settlement Board granted the motion, finding that the grievor could not grieve a violation of management rights without establishing that his own rights under the collective agreement were interfered with.

As the grievor only alleged that other employees received benefits beyond their entitlement, the grievance was inarbitrable.

The complainant sought interim relief to postpone an anticipated job competition process, arguing he had an arguable case on the merits and the harm of possible dismissal outweighed any harm to the employer.

The employer opposed, arguing the complainant lacked an arguable case and the balance of harm favoured the employer's planned workforce reorganization.

The Public Service Grievance Board dismissed the application, finding the complainant failed to establish that the Board's broad remedial powers would be insufficient to fashion an appropriate remedy following a full hearing on the merits.

The complainant sought interim relief to prevent the employer from offering his current job as a Field Intelligence Officer for province-wide competition, arguing it breached his employment contract.

The employer opposed, citing its planned reorganization and the Board's ability to fashion a remedy later.

The Public Service Grievance Board dismissed the application for interim relief, finding that its broad remedial powers, including reinstatement and compensatory damages, would be sufficient to provide an adequate remedy if the complainant ultimately succeeded on the merits.

At a scheduled grievance arbitration hearing, one grievance was withdrawn by the union.

For the second grievance, the grievor failed to appear.

The Vice-Chair directed that the grievance would be deemed dismissed unless the union requested it be re-listed within two weeks, accompanied by full particulars explaining the grievor's failure to attend.

The Union filed a grievance challenging the discipline imposed on correctional officers following a health and safety work refusal and work stoppage.

The Employer raised a preliminary objection that the grievance was untimely.

The Union argued that the timeliness provisions in the Collective Agreement did not apply because the grievance was filed pursuant to a specific Memorandum of Agreement that gave the Union an independent right to grieve.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that the parties did not intend to exclude the application of the Collective Agreement's timeliness provisions when they drafted the Memorandum.

The Employer's preliminary objection regarding timeliness was upheld.

The union brought a motion claiming the employer fundamentally breached a Memorandum of Settlement by having a representative from the grievor's former workplace contact him directly regarding his benefits claim, which exacerbated his mental stress.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the employer's actions in seeking administrative assistance to fulfill its obligations under the settlement did not constitute a breach of the settlement's confidentiality or assistance provisions.

The motion to set aside the settlement was dismissed.

The union filed a grievance alleging the employer unreasonably exercised its management rights by unilaterally adjusting the official range of rates for the Adjustment Advisory position, effectively downgrading the employees to a lower-paying classification.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the grievance for lack of jurisdiction.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that the true nature of the grievance was a classification dispute.

Under sections 51 and 52 of the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act, the Board is expressly deprived of jurisdiction to require a change in an employee's classification.

Accordingly, the employer's motion was granted and the grievance was dismissed.

The Employer sought to introduce written and verbal statements from inmates regarding an alleged assault by a correctional officer, which led to the discharge of three officers.

The Union opposed the admission of these hearsay statements.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that the statements did not meet the tests of necessity and reliability under the principled approach to hearsay, as the Employer failed to show efforts to obtain testimony through alternative means for deported witnesses, and the statements lacked sufficient guarantees of trustworthiness.

However, the Board admitted the statements into the record under section 48(12)(f) of the Labour Relations Act, leaving the determination of their weight to the conclusion of the hearing.

The Employer requested an adjournment of a scheduled hearing date because its counsel had to travel to the United States to attend to a serious family medical emergency.

The Union opposed the request, citing previous delays and the grievor's interest in concluding the matter.

The Grievance Settlement Board granted the adjournment, finding that the unexpected family emergency warranted the delay and that it would be unreasonable to require the Employer to assign new counsel on short notice.

The grievor, a Data Processing Technician, was laid off after his position was relocated and he declined to move.

He filed two grievances alleging the Employer breached the collective agreement by failing to redeploy him to a Payment Processing position or allow him to displace a junior employee, and by failing to provide him with a temporary assignment during his surplus notice period.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed both grievances, finding that the grievor lacked the requisite financial qualifications to perform the core duties of the Payment Processing position without a training period, and that the union failed to prove that any temporary vacancies existed for which the grievor was qualified.

The union brought an interim motion asking the Grievance Settlement Board to determine its jurisdiction to find the employer vicariously liable for the tort of 'intrusion upon seclusion' committed by a co-worker against the grievor.

The employer opposed the motion, arguing there was no collective agreement basis for such liability.

The Vice-Chair declined to rule on the jurisdictional issue at this interim stage, finding no compelling reason to do so before the conclusion of the evidence, and reserved the decision for final submissions.

The Union filed a grievance alleging the grievor was verbally assaulted by a manager, seeking $50,000 in general damages for emotional harm.

The Union intended to call the grievor's psychotherapist, who reported the incident triggered pre-existing PTSD.

The Employer brought a motion for production of the psychotherapist's clinical notes from 2003 and 2004.

The Union opposed, arguing the historical notes were irrelevant and highly personal.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered production, finding the notes relevant due to the pre-existing condition and holding that the Employer's right to a fair hearing outweighed the grievor's privacy concerns, subject to strict confidentiality conditions.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of a flexible part-time courtroom clerk, alleging that the employer violated the collective agreement by scheduling her for four days per week instead of five, unilaterally altering her posted schedule, and cancelling shifts to avoid overtime.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the employer's scheduling practices were consistent with its obligation to make reasonable efforts to ensure employees meet their minimum annual hours and its right to manage the schedule to avoid overtime.

Two Court Reporters grieved that their call-back hours were not counted toward their minimum weekly hours requirement as flexible part-time employees.

The Employer demonstrated that the hours were indeed counted, but were processed as a leave of absence without pay in the payroll system to ensure the correct premium pay rate was applied without accruing deficit hours.

The Grievance Settlement Board found no violation of the collective agreement and dismissed the grievances.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal defer consideration of the applicant's human rights application pending the conclusion of two grievances filed on his behalf by his union.

The applicant opposed the deferral, arguing that the grievances dealt with pre-notice and severance entitlements under the collective agreement, while the human rights application alleged discrimination based on disability and age.

The Tribunal denied the deferral request, finding that although the proceedings flowed from the same event, they dealt with different issues.