Richard A. Blair

The grievor, returning to work after a disability leave, was placed on a three-month temporary assignment as an Electronic Supervision Resource Officer (ESRO).

During this period, he was job shadowing and was not provided with standard ESRO equipment such as a dedicated office, Ministry vehicle, cell phone, pager, building key, or new identification card.

The union grieved, alleging the employer's failure to provide these resources constituted discrimination on the basis of disability contrary to the collective agreement and the Human Rights Code.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that the employer's decisions regarding equipment were based on the grievor's status as a temporary employee engaged in job shadowing, not his disability.

The union filed grievances claiming that two newly created positions fell within its bargaining unit.

The employer brought a motion to defer the grievances to the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB), arguing that the matter was a jurisdictional dispute involving another union (AMAPCEO) and that an application under section 99 of the Labour Relations Act had already been filed.

The Grievance Settlement Board granted the motion to defer, finding that the OLRB was the more appropriate forum to resolve jurisdictional disputes and avoid parallel proceedings.

The union filed a grievance alleging the employer breached a Memorandum of Settlement by failing to consider two grievors for restorative sawmill work before contracting it out.

The employer argued it contracted out the work for efficiency and timing reasons, and that considering the grievors would not have changed the outcome.

The arbitrator found the employer completely failed to consider the grievors, breaching the settlement.

As a remedy for the lost opportunity, the arbitrator awarded damages equal to 25% of the wages the grievors would have earned had they been assigned the work during periods they were not otherwise employed by the employer.

The Union filed grievances alleging that the Ministry of the Attorney General contravened the Collective Agreement by allowing non-ministry employees to perform bargaining unit work in the Victim/Witness Program.

On consent of the parties, the Grievance Settlement Board ordered the Employer to produce all arguably relevant documentation to Union counsel by June 30, 2010, subject to confidentiality restrictions.

In an interim decision regarding a discharge grievance, the employer raised a preliminary objection that the Grievance Settlement Board lacked jurisdiction to extend the time limits for referring the grievance to arbitration.

The union argued that section 48(16) of the Labour Relations Act permitted the extension.

The Vice-Chair analyzed the collective agreement's language and structure, concluding that the referral to arbitration was distinct from the grievance procedure.

Consequently, following established jurisprudence, the Board held it had no jurisdiction under section 48(16) to extend the time limits for referral to arbitration, and upheld the employer's objection.

The employer sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision finding a duty to accommodate a paramedic who lost his Class F driver's licence due to vision problems.

The arbitrator had ordered the employer to accommodate the grievor in an 'attend only' capacity.

The Divisional Court granted the application and set aside the arbitrator's decision, holding that the non-accommodating standard requiring all paramedics to drive was reasonably necessary to achieve the highest level of health and safety.

The court found the arbitrator erred by applying a standard of 'reasonable safety' and relying on a lack of historical evidence regarding volunteer paramedics.

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 applicant university sought judicial review of an arbitration award that found it violated the collective agreement by requiring students in an introductory psychology class to mark the work of other students without pay.

The arbitrator concluded that the students performing the marking function were members of the bargaining unit, relying on past grievance settlements that established an agreed interpretation prohibiting unpaid student labour for teaching and evaluation.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator's decision was reasonable and consistent with past interpretations.

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 union filed a grievance asserting that the position of Administrative Coordinator should be included in the bargaining unit.

The employer brought a motion requesting that the Grievance Settlement Board defer the proceedings pending a determination by the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) on whether the person filling the position is an employee under the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act.

The Board found that it had concurrent jurisdiction with the OLRB to determine employee status.

Considering the delay that deferral would cause and the Board's expertise in public sector labour relations, the Board declined to exercise its discretion to defer to the OLRB and dismissed the employer's motion.

The Union filed twenty-three policy grievances under the Bargaining Unit Integrity (BUI) Protocol, each naming an entire Ministry.

The Employer objected, arguing the Protocol did not contemplate grievances framed so broadly, as it would make the required disclosure obligations impossible to meet within the stipulated six-week timeframe.

The Grievance Settlement Board agreed with the Employer, finding that the language of the Protocol, which refers to 'units, branches, departments, or offices', indicates an intention to identify areas smaller than a Ministry to ensure the process can be managed efficiently.

The grievances were dismissed.

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 applicant hospital sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision upholding a grievance by a social worker (OPSEU member) who claimed permanent status in a Court Support Worker position.

The position had been temporarily vacated by a nurse (ONA member) who took a short-term acting manager role.

The Divisional Court found the arbitrator's decision unreasonable because he reversed the onus of proof, ignored compelling evidence that the assignment was temporary, and breached natural justice by failing to give notice of the hearing to the ONA.

The arbitrator's decision was set aside and the matter remitted to a new panel.

The Association of Management, Administrative and Professional Crown Employees of Ontario (AMAPCEO) filed a grievance asserting that Operational Manager positions were improperly excluded from its bargaining unit.

OPSEU sought to intervene.

AMAPCEO contested OPSEU's standing and sought production of documents to establish that OPSEU had conceded any claim to the classifications in question.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the Crown to produce specific job descriptions, salary ranges, and personnel file documents relevant to the reclassification of OCR14 positions.

The Board also upheld OPSEU's claim of solicitor-client privilege over two documents.

In a grievance arbitration concerning the exclusion of Operational Manager positions from the bargaining unit, the proposed intervener union sought standing.

The grieving union requested production of documents relating to the proposed intervener's status.

The arbitrator ordered the employer and the proposed intervener to produce documents relating to the settlement of previous grievances and collective bargaining, subject to claims of privilege or relevance.

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 union grievance, the Grievance Settlement Board ordered the Employer to produce particulars of its case to the Union.

The Board also ordered that the Employer lead its evidence first due to its control over the work in dispute, noting this has no impact on the onus.

The union filed grievances alleging that the employer discriminated against employees absent from work due to work-related injuries by not counting their WSIB leave time towards the calculation of continuous service dates, attendance credits, and merit pay.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the failure to include WSIB time for continuous service date purposes discriminated on the basis of disability, as seniority is primarily a participation/access benefit.

However, the Board dismissed the grievances regarding attendance credits and merit pay, concluding that these are compensation benefits tied to work, and the exclusion of WSIB time for these purposes did not constitute discrimination.