Peter Dailleboust

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.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of flexible part-time employees who were required to be on stand-by during the G20 Summit.

The employees were paid for 125 hours at half their regular rate, but these hours were not counted towards their Total Annual Hours.

The union argued that these were hours worked and paid, and should therefore count.

The employer maintained that under the collective agreement, stand-by hours are not considered hours worked.

The arbitrator agreed with the employer, finding that stand-by pay is for being available to work, not for hours actually worked, and dismissed the grievance.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging failure to accommodate his disability and reprisal.

The respondents requested that the Tribunal defer the application because the applicant had filed grievances raising nearly identical allegations, which were proceeding to the Grievance Settlement Board.

The Tribunal found that deferral was the most fair, just, and expeditious way to proceed, as the grievance process was ongoing and the Grievance Settlement Board had the authority to apply the Human Rights Code.

The application was deferred pending the conclusion of the grievance proceeding.

The union brought a preliminary motion requesting that the employer proceed first in a grievance arbitration concerning the transfer of an accommodated employee.

The grievor had been accommodated in a control room position for several years but was transferred to a newly created radio room position, which she alleged violated her medical restrictions due to claustrophobia.

The union argued the employer should proceed first because it possessed exclusive knowledge of the reasons for the transfer.

The arbitrator dismissed the motion, finding that the employer had placed the grievor in a position it asserted met her restrictions, and the union bore the onus of proving the new accommodation was unsuitable and that the employer violated the collective agreement and the Human Rights Code.

The grievor, a Flexible Part Time Court Registrar, filed a grievance alleging that the Employer violated the Collective Agreement by failing to post temporary work assignments that exceeded six months.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the relevant provisions of Article 6 did not apply to Flexible Part Time employees, and therefore the Employer was not obliged to post the positions.

The employer brought two motions regarding the union's statement of particulars in a workplace harassment grievance.

First, the employer argued that res judicata prevented the union from adducing evidence of previously settled grievances regarding overtime and training.

The Board agreed, finding no special circumstances to pierce the sanctity of the prior settlements.

Second, the employer argued that certain allegations were untimely under the collective agreement's 30-day limit.

The Board dismissed this motion, applying the 'three-year rule' for harassment grievances, which allows evidence of a course of conduct over a longer period.

In a supplemental decision regarding a grievance over incorrect vacation entitlement calculations, the Union sought damages for lost opportunity to take vacation and the pay differential for vacation time that would have been earned at overtime rates.

The Employer had already adjusted the vacation days but provided calculations for the cash equivalent of the overtime differential.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the Employer to pay the cash equivalents for the overtime differential but declined to award additional damages for lost opportunity.

The union filed a grievance alleging that a registered nurse was verbally assaulted by an operational manager and a member of the public, creating a poisoned work environment and violating the collective agreement, the Human Rights Code, and the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The union sought to introduce evidence of past incidents of sexist conduct and violent outbursts by the manager involving other female staff.

The employer objected to the admissibility of this evidence, arguing it was irrelevant and prejudicial.

The Grievance Settlement Board ruled that it would hear the evidence regarding the alleged past incidents but reserved its decision on admissibility and weight until final submissions.

The union sought to arbitrate a dispute over a correctional officer's entitlement to legal indemnity for criminal charges that were later withdrawn.

The employer moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that a prior memorandum of settlement merely preserved the grievor's claim from a general release but did not confer jurisdiction.

Furthermore, the union failed to refer the subsequent grievance to arbitration within the collective agreement's time limits.

The employer's motion to dismiss was granted.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of a court reporter alleging she was placed into an incorrect flexible part-time hour category under Appendix 32 of the collective agreement.

The grievor sought placement in the 1500 hour category, arguing her hours were affected by illness and preferential scheduling of others.

Upon review of the grievor's hours of work history since 1999, the parties agreed the hours were pro-rated appropriately.

The Grievance Settlement Board found the grievor was properly assigned to the 1000 hour category and dismissed the grievance.

The grievor was discharged from their position as a Parole and Probation Officer 2.

The parties agreed to proceed via mediation/arbitration under the collective agreement and requested a bottom-line decision without reasons.

The arbitrator ordered the grievor reinstated, substituting the discharge with a 20-day suspension, with no retroactive compensation.

The grievor, a female correctional officer at a women's facility, requested an accommodation to be exempted from performing primary strip searches of female inmates due to medical restrictions related to stress and her sexual orientation.

The employer offered a temporary accommodation at an adjacent men's facility where she would not be required to perform primary strip searches but could perform all other duties.

The grievor declined, arguing she should be accommodated at her home facility and that the employer failed its procedural duty by not consulting her on options.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that the employer did not breach its procedural duty and that the offer of accommodation at the adjacent facility was reasonable, as it fully met her medical restrictions without loss of pay or status, thereby discharging the employer's duty to accommodate.

Two correctional officers grieved their discharge for failing to prevent or report the passing of contraband between units at the Chatham Jail.

The grievors observed an inmate attempting to pass contraband using a string, but took no action to stop it, confiscate the item, or report the incident to management.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the grievors engaged in serious misconduct involving health and safety risks, constituting a breach of trust.

Given the seriousness of the misconduct, their short service, and credibility issues regarding their statements to investigators, the Board concluded that reinstatement was not appropriate and dismissed the grievances.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability and family status.

The respondents brought a request for an order during proceedings to remove the corporate respondent's legal counsel as a personal respondent.

Applying the factors from Persaud, the Tribunal found that the corporate respondent accepted liability for the counsel's actions and there were no specific allegations against him.

The request to remove the personal respondent was granted.

The union filed a grievance alleging that the employer violated Appendix 32 of the collective agreement by assigning criminal registrar work to civil registrars, which resulted in some grievors being assigned administrative duties instead of court duties.

The employer argued that it had the right to assign work based on operational requirements once minimum hour obligations were met.

The arbitrator found no violation of the collective agreement and noted that, even if a violation had occurred, there was no jurisdiction to alter the grievors' minimum hour category.

The grievance was dismissed.

The grievor, a flexible part-time employee, alleged that local management misled her into selecting a 1000-hour minimum work category rather than a 1500-hour category, resulting in financial loss.

She sought compensation or the opportunity to re-select her hour category.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding no evidence of misrepresentation.

The Board held that the grievor had the opportunity to elect her minimum hour category, the Employer was not obliged to provide more hours than the minimum, and the Employer was entitled under its management rights to hire additional staff to minimize overtime.

The Union filed grievances on behalf of three employees alleging the Employer made unreasonable rules contrary to the Collective Agreement regarding flexible part-time status.

Despite multiple opportunities, the Union was unable to obtain and provide the necessary particulars for the grievances.

As a result, the Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievances for lack of particulars.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of an employee alleging her continuous service date was incorrect and seeking an amendment.

The grievor argued she should have been given years of credit dating back to her start with the ministry, similar to other employees converted to classified status.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the grievor had never occupied a flexible part-time (FPT) position and was therefore not entitled to the benefits set out in Appendix 32 of the collective agreement.

The union filed grievances alleging the employer violated the collective agreement by terminating a pre-scheduled day of court work for a flexible part-time employee and re-assigning it to an unclassified employee.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievances, applying a previous decision between the parties which held that flexible part-time employees do not have a right to be scheduled for work in excess of their stated minimum hours before work is offered to fixed-term employees.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Public Service Grievance Board, which found it lacked jurisdiction to hear his wrongful dismissal grievance because he had not been employed by the Crown for at least 12 months.

The applicant argued that new legislation, which removed the 12-month requirement for employees not on probation, should apply retrospectively.

The Divisional Court applied a correctness standard of review and upheld the Board's decision, finding that jurisdiction is a substantive matter and the former legislative provisions governed the applicant's crystallized rights at the time of his dismissal.