Peter Dailleboust

The union filed a group grievance alleging that flexible part-time (FPT) employees were discriminated against because they did not have the same overtime options as other classified employees under the collective agreement.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the parties had specifically negotiated the terms and conditions for FPT employees, including overtime entitlements, in a comprehensive appendix.

The Board held that differing terms for a distinct classification do not constitute discrimination.

In a multi-faceted grievance arbitration, the employer sought particulars of the claims the grievor sought to advance.

The Grievance Settlement Board directed the union to provide full particulars of all aspects of the grievor's claim, excluding matters already covered by a WDHP investigation.

The union was also directed to provide copies of all documents or materials upon which it intended to rely.

The union filed a grievance alleging the employer failed to provide a safe workplace free from harassment and discrimination.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the grievance as inarbitrable because it was referred to arbitration outside the mandatory time limits set out in the collective agreement.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the grievance was clearly outside the mandatory time limits and that it lacked jurisdiction to extend the time limits under section 48(16) of the Labour Relations Act.

The grievance was dismissed as untimely.

The parties agreed to refer all outstanding grievances regarding the interpretation of Appendix 32 (flexible part-time employees) to the Vice-Chair for determination.

The Vice-Chair established an expedited process for litigating the remaining grievances based on written submissions.

On the substantive issue of work assignments, the Vice-Chair held that the Employer is not prohibited from assigning the work of another classification to flexible part-time employees in order to meet its obligation to provide guaranteed minimum hours, provided it complies with the restrictions in the Collective Agreement, including Article 8.

In an interim decision regarding the discharge of three union members, the Association objected to the admissibility of reports and witness statements prepared by a workplace investigator, arguing they constituted hearsay.

The Association requested that if admitted, the employer be directed to call the interviewed witnesses before the investigator to avoid prejudice.

The Grievance Settlement Board admitted the reports, noting the investigator would be called as a witness and subject to cross-examination.

The Board declined to direct the employer's order of witnesses, stating that any hearsay concerns regarding non-testifying witnesses could be addressed through redaction later in the proceeding.

The applicant sought judicial review of two Ontario Labour Relations Board decisions and requested to set aside a Memorandum of Settlement reached at the Grievance Settlement Board.

The applicant claimed he signed the settlement while impaired by medication.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no medical evidence of impairment and noting it lacked jurisdiction to review a settlement agreement.

Furthermore, the court held that the application was barred by inordinate and unexplained delay, as the applicant waited eleven months to commence the application and another seven months to perfect it.

The Union grieved the Employer's method of calculating overtime entitlement for flexible part-time (FPT) employees who change categories or hold other positions within a calendar year.

The Union argued that hours should be prorated at the time of any category change.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the collective agreement contemplates calculating hours worked at the end of the calendar year based on the employee's category as of December 31st, with no obligation to prorate.

The Union filed grievances regarding the scheduling of Flexible Part-Time (FPT) employees under Appendix 32 of the Collective Agreement.

The parties submitted two questions to the Grievance Settlement Board: whether the Employer must schedule FPT employees before fixed-term employees, and whether the Employer must schedule FPT employees for hours in excess of their minimum annual hours.

The Board found in favour of the Employer on both questions, concluding that the Collective Agreement contains no provisions granting FPT employees a right of first refusal for available work or a right to be scheduled beyond their minimum annual hours.

The parties agreed to refer all outstanding and future grievances regarding the interpretation of Appendix 32 of the Collective Agreement to the Vice-Chair for determination.

To efficiently resolve the large number of grievances, the Vice-Chair ordered a streamlined litigation process where grievances will be presented via statements of fact and submissions, without viva voce evidence unless specifically requested.

The parties appeared before the Grievance Settlement Board for an interpretation of a memorandum of settlement.

The employer acknowledged that a required payment had taken too long to process.

The Vice-Chair ordered that the payment be made forthwith with interest.

The Applicant alleged that the employer breached a Memorandum of Settlement by placing him on a tracking protocol for respondents in substantiated incidents under the Workplace Discrimination and Harassment Policy (WDHP).

The Applicant argued this amounted to a disciplinary measure incompatible with the settlement.

The employer maintained it was complying with its obligations under an agreement with OPSEU and that the tracking protocol was not disciplinary.

The Public Service Grievance Board found that the settlement did not reference the tracking protocol and that placement on the protocol was not a disciplinary measure.

The application for a declaration of breach was dismissed.

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.

The employer brought a motion to dismiss the union's grievance on the basis that it did not disclose a prima facie case.

The grievance alleged that the employer discriminated against and harassed the grievor by including her name in a list of employees to be interviewed during an investigation into an offensive workplace email, allegedly in retaliation for grievances she had filed 17 years prior.

The Grievance Settlement Board found no evidence that the employer's actions were discriminatory or harassing, noting that the employer was obligated to investigate the email and did so without disparaging the grievor.

The motion was granted and the grievance was dismissed.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the Employer to place the grievor on full salary at his current rate of pay pending his appointment as a Transportation Officer 2 with the Ministry of Transportation.

The grievor was obliged to accept any reasonable work assignment until the appointment took effect.

The Vice-Chair remained seized of the matter regarding implementation.

The Union requested an adjournment sine die of a scheduled hearing date because it reasonably believed the grievor, who suffers from PTSD, would behave disruptively, making it impossible to conduct the hearing.

The Employer opposed the adjournment, arguing the proceeding had gone on too long.

The Grievance Settlement Board granted the adjournment, noting the grievor's recent extreme conduct and the likelihood of its repetition.

However, the Board declined to adjourn the matter sine die, instead rescheduling it to a specific date to ensure the proceeding is not left in limbo indefinitely.

During a conference call, the Union requested an adjournment sine die of the upcoming hearing date.

The Employer opposed the request.

The Vice-Chair granted the adjournment but declined to adjourn the matter sine die, instead rescheduling the hearing to a specific date, with reasons to follow.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to exclude evidence of events from 2005 that were the subject of previous grievances settled by a Memorandum of Settlement in 2006.

The union sought to adduce the evidence to show a pattern of harassment and provide context for current grievances alleging breaches of the settlement and reprisal.

The Grievance Settlement Board granted the employer's motion, holding that the principle of the sanctity of settlements prevents the admission of evidence underlying settled grievances absent special circumstances, which were not present here.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued an amendment to its January 7, 2009 decision.

The amendment replaces the last sentence of paragraph 16 to clarify that only the Article 42.10 issue raised by the grievor's February 25, 2008 grievance is dismissed, while any remaining issues from that grievance remain outstanding.

The grievor, a Correctional Officer, developed PTSD and was unable to return to his custodial position.

After receiving LTIP benefits, he returned to work on temporary assignments in a different role.

The Union grieved, arguing that under Article 42.10 of the Collective Agreement, the grievor was entitled to the employment stability provisions of Article 20B, as if he had received a surplus notice.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that Article 42.10 is merely a timing provision that delays the application of Article 20B for employees who have received a surplus notice until they are able to return to full-time employment.

It does not grant access to Article 20B benefits to an employee who has not received a surplus notice.

The Niagara Escarpment Commission appealed an Ontario Municipal Board decision allowing a subdivision application to proceed to a hearing.

The central issue was whether the Board had jurisdiction under the Planning Act despite amendments to the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act requiring a development permit before any development decision.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the Board erred in law by failing to address the mandatory language of the amended legislation.

The Court further held that the respondent did not have a vested right to a hearing before the Board.