Richard Blair

The union filed a grievance alleging the employer breached the confidentiality provisions of a prior settlement agreement by placing the unredacted memorandum of settlement, including monetary terms, in the grievor's staff services file.

The grievor testified she saw the full document in her file, while the employer's witnesses testified they only saw the accommodation plan schedule and never the monetary terms.

The arbitrator found the evidence from both sides to be credible and evenly balanced.

Because the evidence stood in equipoise, the union failed to meet its onus of proving the breach on a balance of probabilities, and the grievance was dismissed.

The grievor filed a grievance alleging the employer provided erroneous information to independent medical evaluation specialists, based on draft letters she discovered in her occupational health file.

The employer argued the grievance was barred by a prior Memorandum of Settlement that fully and finally settled all claims related to her return to work and accommodation process up to November 30, 2012.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that the draft letters related to the matters settled in the Memorandum of Settlement and could not be raised as a separate and distinct event.

The parties disputed whether a Memorandum of Settlement signed on November 28, 2014, resolved seven grievances filed by the grievor in 2013 regarding statutory holiday pay.

The Employer argued that the settlement's language withdrawing 'any and all grievances up to today's date' included the 2013 grievances.

The Union argued that the settlement was intended only to cover grievances filed between March 2010 and November 2012, as specified in other clauses.

The Vice-Chair found that, reading the agreement as a whole and in context, the parties intended to resolve only the grievances from 2010 to 2012.

The 2013 grievances were not resolved by the settlement and remain to be scheduled.

The union filed a grievance regarding the employer's failure to comply with Minutes of Settlement signed in October 2014.

The employer conceded that it breached the settlement by failing to provide the agreed-upon training in human rights, equity, diversity, workplace violence, harassment, and bullying within the twelve-month timeline.

The Grievance Settlement Board noted the employer's commitment to training and remained seized of any interpretation issues.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding a certification vote for part-time employees at Ontario community colleges.

The Board had to interpret the Colleges Collective Bargaining Act, 2008 to determine which employees would be 'substantially effected' by the vote and whether the employee group was 'substantially representative' given the fluctuating workforce.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Board's interpretation of its home statute and application of labour relations principles was reasonable and entitled to deference.

The union alleged that the employer breached the confidentiality provision of a settlement agreement by publishing the grievor's settlement payments on the public sector sunshine list.

The employer argued that the disclosure was required by the Public Sector Salary Disclosure Act, 1996, as the payments constituted salary under the Income Tax Act.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that the payments were income from employment and the employer was required by law to disclose them, which fell within an exception to the confidentiality provision.

The Union and two individual grievors filed grievances relating to the transcription of police interviews, which had been assigned to a private transcription service.

In an interim decision to move the matters forward, the Vice-Chair directed the grievors to complete and submit Conflict of Interest determination requests regarding the work in question.

The direction was made without prejudice to the parties' positions on any issue, including whether a conflict of interest existed or its relevance.

The matter was adjourned pending the determination.

At a hearing before the Grievance Settlement Board, the union sought disclosure of documents related to a Workplace Discrimination and Harassment Prevention (WDHP) report.

The Board issued an oral order, subsequently rendered in writing, requiring the employer to disclose all arguably relevant documents contained in the specified WDHP file.

The Union filed grievances on behalf of two long-service employees who were denied approval for the Transition Exit Initiative (TEI) under Appendix 46 of the collective agreement.

The Employer denied the requests because the grievors' local office was under complement, meaning their departure would not result in cost savings or prevent layoffs.

The Union argued that the Employer's discretion was fettered by the seniority provisions in Appendix 46, requiring TEI requests to be considered on a bargaining-unit-wide basis.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievances, finding that the collective agreement granted the Employer broad discretion to approve TEI requests based on operational needs and whether the exit supported the transformation of the Ontario Public Service, without being strictly bound by seniority at the approval stage.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued an order restricting the publication and dissemination of a settlement agreement between the Union and the Employer regarding the use of non-bargaining unit court reporters.

The Union was directed to notify bargaining unit members by posting a specific statement on its website and was prohibited from otherwise distributing the settlement terms or making public comments, except as necessary to explain the terms to members.

The arbitrator was seized with three grievances pursuant to the Mediation/Arbitration Procedure in the Collective Agreement.

Upon consideration, the arbitrator granted the grievances and remained seized of any implementation issues.

The grievor, a regular full-time employee at a Tim Hortons operated by the Niagara Parks Commission, had her position declared surplus due to an economic downturn.

She exercised her bumping rights to take a seasonal position.

The Union grieved, arguing it was unjust to replace a full-time position with seasonal hours while the operation remained open year-round.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding the Employer acted in good faith for sound business reasons and complied with the specific layoff and bumping provisions of the collective agreement.

Thames Emergency Medical Services (TEMS) requested to be removed as a respondent to a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability.

The applicant originally named Middlesex-London Emergency Medical Services Authority (MLEMSA) as the sole respondent, alleging discrimination when she was not offered employment after MLEMSA took over services from TEMS.

MLEMSA added the union as a respondent, and the union subsequently added TEMS.

Applying the Smyth test, the Tribunal found that the applicant had not raised any allegations against TEMS that could support a finding of a Code violation.

The request was granted and TEMS was removed as a respondent.

The grievor, a Ministry of Labour Inspector, was terminated for abusing his authority.

While assisting his sister (a landlord) in a dispute with her tenant, the grievor attempted to gain entry to the tenant's apartment.

Video evidence contradicted the grievor's testimony and confirmed that he flashed his Ministry badge, claimed to have a warrant, and falsely asserted authority to enter the premises.

The Grievance Settlement Board found the grievor's actions constituted a serious abuse of trust justifying his dismissal, and dismissed the grievance.

The parties agreed to a procedural protocol to marshal further discussions and evidence regarding a grievance alleging contravention of the Employer's Workplace Discrimination and Harassment Policy.

The Vice-Chair confirmed the protocol as an order of the Grievance Settlement Board, setting deadlines for settlement proposals, exchange of particulars, documentary disclosure, and scheduling of the formal hearing.

The grievor requested a hearing arising from Minutes of Settlement over which the Vice-Chair remained seized.

A hearing was scheduled, but the grievor failed to provide particulars of the issue despite the employer's request.

As the parties were unable to prepare, the hearing was cancelled.

The Vice-Chair directed that particulars must be provided before any future hearing is scheduled.

The parties disputed the interpretation of a Memorandum of Agreement requiring WDHP/Human Rights training for 'all staff' at a correctional centre.

The union argued the employer had an ongoing obligation to train all new employees in the future, while the employer disagreed.

The Vice-Chair held that 'all staff' referred only to those employed as of the date the Agreement was signed, meaning there was no ongoing obligation for future hires.

However, the Vice-Chair also ruled that the employer must ensure all staff employed at the time of signing who missed the training (due to leaves, illness, etc.) complete it, as the Agreement did not qualify the requirement.

The applicant sought to reactivate his human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal by his employer in denying a transfer, and by his union in its representation of him.

The application had been deferred pending a grievance arbitration, which ultimately dismissed his grievances for insufficient evidence.

The Tribunal dismissed the request to reactivate due to delay.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held that the application against the employer must be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code because the arbitration appropriately dealt with its substance, and raising a new ground of racial discrimination would be an abuse of process.

The application against the union was dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The grievor alleged discrimination by the employer.

To facilitate the adjudication of the grievance, the Grievance Settlement Board directed the parties to exchange medical documentation pertaining to the grievor's Workplace Safety and Insurance Board files.

The Board also directed three doctors to provide their complete medical records relating to the grievor to union counsel, who would then provide appropriate copies to employer counsel.

The disclosure was made subject to strict confidentiality conditions, limiting use solely to the arbitration proceedings.

The union requested an order for the appointment of an independent investigator to investigate a racist hate mail campaign at the Toronto Jail, arguing the employer's internal investigation was inadequate.

The Grievance Settlement Board denied the request as premature, finding that the employer had made substantial efforts and that the parties must first address the implementation of recommendations from a previous review of the employer's investigation.