Richard Blair

The grievor, a Correctional Officer, was terminated for multiple instances of misconduct, including time theft, failing to disclose a criminal charge, and failing to cooperate with a Ministry of Correctional Services Act Section 22 investigation.

The Union grieved the termination, arguing the investigations were discriminatory and the penalty excessive.

The Arbitrator found that the Employer established just cause for discipline on several serious allegations, particularly the time theft, failure to disclose the criminal charge, and failure to cooperate with the investigation.

The Arbitrator concluded that the grievor's dishonest behaviour constituted a breach of trust that irreparably damaged the employment relationship, and dismissed the grievance.

The Union filed grievances on behalf of several employees whose applications for the Transition Exit Initiative (TEI) were denied by the Employer.

The Union argued that the Employer fettered its discretion by only considering whether the employees' positions were still required.

The Arbitrator dismissed the grievances, finding no meaningful distinction from previous decisions which held that the Employer has broad discretion under Appendix 46 to determine whether an employee's exit supports the transformation of the Ontario Public Service.

The union filed grievances on behalf of four employees whose requests for enhanced severance benefits under the Transition Exit Initiative were denied by the employer.

The union argued that the employer fettered its discretion by only considering whether the positions were still required.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievances, finding no basis to distinguish them from previous decisions which established that the employer has broad discretion under the collective agreement to determine whether an employee's exit supports the transformation of the public service.

The union filed grievances on behalf of four employees whose requests for enhanced severance benefits under the Transition Exit Initiative (TEI) were denied by the employer prior to their retirements.

The union argued the employer fettered its discretion by only considering whether the positions were still required, rather than a broader view of workforce transformation.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievances, finding the cases indistinguishable from previous decisions which held that the employer has broad discretion to determine whether an employee's exit supports transformation and is entitled to focus on downsizing.

The Union filed grievances on behalf of five employees whose requests for enhanced severance benefits under the Transition Exit Initiative (TEI) were denied by the Employer.

The Employer maintained that the employees' positions were still required and their exit would not support the transformation of the Ontario Public Service.

The Arbitrator found that the Employer properly exercised its broad discretion under Appendix 46 of the Collective Agreement, consistent with previous decisions, and dismissed the grievances.

The Union filed grievances on behalf of several employees whose requests for a voluntary exit package under the Transition Exit Initiative (TEI) were denied by the Employer.

The Union argued that the Employer fettered its discretion by only considering whether the positions were still required.

The Arbitrator dismissed the grievances, finding that the Employer properly exercised its broad discretion under the collective agreement to determine that the employees' exits would not support its vision of transformation, consistent with previous decisions on the same issue.

The grievor received a 20-day suspension nearly two years after the alleged misconduct.

The union brought a preliminary motion arguing the delay was unreasonable.

The employer argued the delay was due to insufficient staffing and workload issues.

The arbitrator found the employer's reasons invalid and noted the inherent prejudice to the grievor, who was unaware her conduct was being questioned.

The motion was upheld, the discipline was declared null and void, and the employer was ordered to reimburse the grievor for the suspension.

The union filed several grievances on behalf of an employee regarding a workplace injury incident and accommodation issues.

The grievor alleged the employer failed to provide a safe workplace, improperly used video surveillance to dispute her WSIB claim, and failed to accommodate her need for an ergonomic chair.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievances, finding the employer had the right to dispute the WSIB claim and provide the requested video to the WSIB.

The arbitrator also found insufficient evidence that the employer failed to accommodate the grievor, noting the employer generally acted quickly to repair the shared ergonomic chair when it broke.

The Union filed grievances alleging that the Employer violated the collective agreement by failing to post Cleaner 2 positions at the Toronto East Detention Centre and by using an external contractor to perform cleaning work.

The arbitrator found that cleaning work at the facility had historically been performed by inmates, not bargaining unit members, meaning the work was not exclusive to the bargaining unit.

Furthermore, the minor amount of cleaning work performed by the external contractor was captured by the de minimis principle.

The grievances were dismissed.

The Union grieved the Employer's implementation of a Memorandum of Agreement regarding the promotion of Community Behaviour Consultants to a higher classification.

The former classification was based on a 40-hour work week, while the new classification was based on a 36.25-hour work week.

The Union argued that the promotional increase should be applied to the weekly rates before converting to a 40-hour week, resulting in increases of over 13%.

The Employer argued that the hourly rates of the two classifications must be compared to determine the appropriate promotional step, resulting in increases consistent with the collective agreement's 3% promotional rule.

The Arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that the Employer's method of comparing hourly rates was the correct interpretation of the Memorandum of Agreement read in conjunction with the collective agreement.

The union filed grievances on behalf of several correctional officers whose applications for the Transition Exit Initiative (TEI) were denied by the employer.

The union argued that the employer's exclusive focus on staffing shortages and the lack of intention to reduce correctional officer positions amounted to a blanket rule, thereby fettering its discretion.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievances, finding that the employer properly exercised its broad discretion under the collective agreement.

The consistent denial of TEI requests from correctional officers was not due to an improper blanket rule, but rather reflected the shared operational and fiscal realities of their chronically understaffed positions, which meant their exit would not support the employer's vision of transformation.

The parties previously resolved a grievance through Minutes of Settlement that included confidentiality and no admission of liability clauses.

The Union conceded that it breached these terms by publishing in its 2018 Convention Update that the grievor 'won' his complaint.

The Union acknowledged the importance of settlement obligations and committed to upholding them in the future.

The grievor applied for the Transition Exit Initiative (TEI) but retired before her application was approved.

The Union grieved the denial, alleging the Employer improperly considered her eligibility for an unreduced pension, amounting to age discrimination.

The Arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding no evidence that the Senior Management Team considered her retirement status.

The denial was based on the lack of ongoing transformation in her department and the need to maintain staffing levels.

The Arbitrator accepted the Employer's evidence that a manager's comment regarding her retirement eligibility was made sympathetically, not as the reason for the denial.

The union grieved the employer's decision to deny the grievor's request for a Transition Exit Initiative (TEI) prior to her retirement.

The union argued that the grievor's position had undergone a wholesale transformation and was effectively eliminated, making the denial an improper exercise of discretion.

The arbitrator found that while the grievor's duties had evolved significantly due to technological changes and reorganization, her position was not eliminated and her work was still required by the employer.

The arbitrator concluded that the employer reasonably exercised its discretion in denying the TEI request, as the initiative was intended to facilitate workforce reduction and avoid layoffs, not to serve as a general retirement allowance.

The union grieved the employer's denial of short-term sickness benefits for an employee who took time off work to travel for monthly medical injections.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding no evidence that the treatments could only be administered during the employee's scheduled working hours, as she finished work at 2:00 p.m. and could travel to the clinic before the close of business.

The grievor sought special and compassionate leave under the collective agreement after missing a shift to repair her car.

The employer denied the request on the basis that the car was driveable and alternate transportation was available.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that the employer's decision was reasonable, made in good faith, and based on relevant facts, as the grievor had driven the car a considerable distance for repairs and could have found an alternate way to work.

The Grievor filed grievances contesting the Employer's refusal to allow her to review video surveillance footage of her work area on the date of an alleged workplace accident, and contesting the Employer's decision to allow another bargaining unit member to view and summarize the footage for a WSIB claim.

The Union argued this violated Appendix COR10 of the collective agreement and was an unreasonable exercise of management rights.

The Arbitrator dismissed the grievances, finding that Appendix COR10 only required notice and a copy of video recordings prior to a disciplinary meeting, which did not occur here.

The Arbitrator also found no independent breach of management rights without a hook in the collective agreement, and no prohibition against another employee viewing the video as part of their duties.

The union alleged that the employer breached the collective agreement by engaging in discrimination, harassment, and abuse of authority when it requested that the grievor's short-term sickness benefit forms be separated by calendar year (2016 and 2017).

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that even if the employer was wrong to request the separation, the request did not amount to harassment or discrimination.

The evidence did not show that the request required extra doctor visits or caused additional stress.

The grievor, a long-service Database Administrator, applied for a Transition Exit Initiative (TEI) under Appendix 46 of the collective agreement prior to retiring.

The Employer denied the application on the basis that there was an ongoing need for the grievor's position, despite the grievor's core duties diminishing due to technological changes.

The Union grieved the denial, arguing that the grievor's departure supported the transformation of the OPS.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the Employer reasonably exercised its broad discretion under Appendix 46 by limiting TEI approvals to circumstances where the departure would free up a position to be eliminated, consistent with the objective of workforce reduction.

The applicant municipality sought judicial review of a Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT) decision granting workers' compensation benefits to an off-duty paramedic.

The paramedic injured his bicep while assisting on-duty paramedics with a medical emergency at a music festival.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that WSIAT reasonably applied the 'place, time and activity' criteria from the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board's policy to conclude the injury occurred in the course of employment.