Richard Blair

The employer brought a motion to dismiss numerous grievances alleging a breach of displacement rights under the collective agreement, arguing they were referred to arbitration outside the mandatory time limits.

The union conceded the grievances were referred late due to an administrative error but argued it was inequitable to deny the grievors access to arbitration.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that it lacked jurisdiction under the collective agreement and section 48(16) of the Labour Relations Act to extend the time limits for referral to arbitration.

The grievances were dismissed.

The grievor, a full-time Customer Service Representative at the LCBO, was discharged after being caught on surveillance video stealing over $4,000 worth of liquor on six separate occasions.

She pled guilty to criminal charges and paid restitution.

The union grieved the discharge, arguing that the grievor's actions were mitigated by severe depression and alcoholism following the deaths of her husband and brother.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding no independent medical evidence of alcohol addiction or rehabilitation, and noting that the thefts were premeditated and executed with accomplices.

The Board concluded that the union failed to establish compelling mitigatory circumstances to rebut the prima facie appropriateness of discharge for theft.

The Union grieved the Employer's decision to surplus 11 Human Resources Assistant positions and assign some of their clerical duties to non-bargaining unit employees following a reorganization and technological upgrade.

The Union argued this violated the implied restriction against assigning bargaining unit work outside the unit.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the transferred duties were incidental, overlapped with non-unit work, and did not constitute enough volume to occupy a non-unit employee for even half a shift, thus failing to trigger the implied restriction.

The union filed a grievance challenging the employer's introduction of paid parking at the Downsview Complex.

The employer brought a motion to dismiss the grievance without a hearing, arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction because the collective agreement did not address parking, and that the remaining allegations did not disclose a prima facie case.

The Board held it had no jurisdiction to deal with the introduction of paid parking or its reasonableness, as the collective agreement contained no restrictions on management's right to introduce it.

However, the Board allowed the grievance to proceed to a hearing solely on the allegations that the employer contravened the discrimination and health and safety provisions of the collective agreement.

The union filed a policy grievance alleging the employer violated the collective agreement's employment stability provisions regarding temporary assignments for surplus employees.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss portions of the claim for failing to establish a prima facie case.

The arbitrator dismissed the employer's motion regarding the union's claim that the employer must track and match temporary assignments, and the claim that surplus employees should be considered when fixed-term contracts are renewed.

However, the arbitrator allowed the employer's motion to dismiss the union's claim that surplus employees have displacement rights over fixed-term or acting employees, finding no basis for such rights in the collective agreement.

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 applicant filed a human rights application against his union and his former employer, alleging discrimination on the basis of race, ancestry, ethnic origin, disability, and creed, as well as reprisal.

The union requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application for having no reasonable prospect of success, and the employer sought dismissal for delay.

The Tribunal found no reasonable prospect that the union's handling of the applicant's grievances, including its decision to settle, was discriminatory or failed to accommodate his disability or religion.

The Tribunal also found that the application against the employer was filed beyond the one-year limitation period without a good faith explanation for the delay.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The employer moved to dismiss a discharge grievance on the basis that it was referred to arbitration outside the mandatory time limits set out in the collective agreement.

The union argued that the time limits were not triggered because the employer failed to hold a mandatory stage two meeting.

The Grievance Settlement Board followed its prior jurisprudence, holding that the employer's failure to hold a stage two meeting did not prevent the time limits for referral to arbitration from running.

As the grievance was referred to arbitration more than two years after it was filed, it was out of time.

The motion was granted and the grievance dismissed.

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 Union filed grievances on behalf of Electronic Monitoring Officers (EMOs) claiming entitlement to the Custodial Responsibility Allowance (CRA) under the collective agreement.

The CRA requires employees to direct offenders engaged in beneficial labour for a major portion of their working time.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that EMOs spend the vast majority of their time monitoring offenders in the community to ensure compliance with release conditions, rather than directing offenders engaged in labour beneficial to the institution.

The grievances were dismissed.

The parties sought clarification regarding the interpretation and application of a prior settlement dated September 16, 2009.

On consent, the Grievance Settlement Board ordered that the total settlement amount payable was $10,139.73, from which the employer was entitled to deduct $4,339.90 for the recovery of WSIB benefits paid to the grievor prior to November 5, 2009.

The employer was directed to pay the net amount of $5,799.83 to the grievor.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the union's request for a 'post and fill' remedy regarding transcription work allegedly performed by non-employees.

The employer argued the remedy was barred by res judicata, issue estoppel, or abuse of process, relying on a prior Board decision involving the same parties where a similar remedial request was rejected.

The Board dismissed the motion, finding that the prior decision rejected the remedy because it was raised late in the proceedings, not because it was inherently improper.

The Board concluded there was no jurisdictional obstacle to considering the remedy if the grievance succeeded.

The parties each sought the production of documents from one another that had already been produced in a separate proceeding before the Grievance Settlement Board.

The prior production was subject to an implied undertaking that the documents only be used for the purposes of that case.

As neither party objected to the request, the Vice-Chair directed the production of the documents, effectively allowing the prior production to be used for the purposes of the instant case.

The union filed a grievance asserting that the position of Administrative Coordinator in the Assistant Deputy Minister's office should be included in the bargaining unit.

The employer argued the position was excluded under the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act because the incumbent was employed in a confidential capacity relating to labour relations and had duties constituting a conflict of interest.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the incumbent had regular and material involvement with sensitive labour relations information and effectively authored conflict of interest responses for the Ministry.

The Board concluded the Act did not apply to the position and dismissed the grievance.

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.