Roslyn Baichoo

The employer brought a motion to dismiss 39 individual grievances for failing to disclose a prima facie case.

The grievances alleged that a "New Year New Outlook" presentation delivered by management violated the collective agreement and the Human Rights Code.

The presentation contained images of poverty in the developing world and compared them to "trivial" problems in the developed world, which the grievors found offensive, condescending, and anti-union.

The Grievance Settlement Board upheld the employer's motion and dismissed the grievances.

The Board found that the union failed to assert facts capable of establishing that any of the grievors possessed a protected characteristic under the Code, that the harassment was based on a protected ground, or that any grievor suffered a disadvantage because of union activity.

The complainant, an Operational Manager at a detention centre, received a seven-day suspension for failing to report a food spillage incident in a timely manner.

He filed a grievance contesting the discipline, but the employer raised a preliminary objection that the notice to the Deputy Minister was filed outside the 14-day time limit prescribed by Regulation 378/07.

The complainant argued that the time limits should not apply because his discipline was a reprisal for reporting wrongdoing under Part VI of the Public Service of Ontario Act.

The Public Service Grievance Board held that it lacked the statutory authority to extend the time limits for a terms and conditions complaint.

Furthermore, the Board found that the complainant's occurrence reports did not constitute a disclosure of wrongdoing as defined in the Act, nor were they made in accordance with the statutory procedures.

Consequently, the complaint was dismissed.

The union filed a grievance alleging that the employer violated the management rights and employment stability clauses of the collective agreement by improperly surplusing the grievor.

The parties agreed to a bottom-line decision without reasons.

The arbitrator found that the grievor was properly surplused and dismissed the grievance.

The union filed a grievance alleging the employer discriminated against the grievor on the basis of age, race, and place of origin when he was denied an interview for an engineering position.

The employer raised a preliminary objection to the Board's jurisdiction because the position sought was in a different bargaining unit represented by PEGO, not OPSEU.

The Board upheld the preliminary objection, finding that while it has jurisdiction to apply the Human Rights Code, that jurisdiction must be anchored to a right or discretion exercised under the OPSEU collective agreement.

Because the grievance challenged a selection process governed entirely by the PEGO collective agreement, the Board lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter.

The union brought an application to consolidate two grievances filed on behalf of the grievor.

The first grievance related to a 20-month suspension with pay pending an investigation into a 'water club' run by the grievor, which allegedly caused severe mental and physical health issues.

The second grievance related to the employer's refusal to honor the grievor's surplus election form, which was submitted two weeks late, allegedly due to the health effects of the suspension.

The employer resisted consolidation, citing a lack of particulars.

The Vice-Chair granted the application to consolidate, finding sufficient commonality in the facts and legal questions, particularly regarding the medical evidence, to avoid inconsistent findings and provide procedural efficiencies.

The Association grieved the employer's failure to provide insurance coverage for dental implants, arguing that implants fall under the category of 'major restorative services' in Article 35 of the collective agreement.

The employer maintained that the incorporated insurance policy did not cover implants and that Article 35 merely established premium payment and reimbursement levels, rather than expanding coverage.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that while dental implants could be considered a major restorative service, the collective agreement's general reference to such services did not explicitly expand the specific coverage provided in the underlying insurance policy.

The grievor received a surplus notice and was redeployed to a lower-classified position.

The Union grieved, arguing the surplus notice improperly relied on her home position (Change Control Officer) rather than the temporary duties she had been performing (Technology Support Analyst).

At the close of the Union's evidence, the Employer brought a motion for a non-suit.

The Grievance Settlement Board granted the motion, finding the Union failed to present sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case of a collective agreement violation, as the Employer's actions complied with the collective agreement's provisions regarding surplussing and redeployment based on the grievor's home position.

The grievor, a correctional officer, refused a supervisor's order to return two inmates to their original unit to avoid triple bunking, claiming the order was unsafe and the supervisor was incompetent.

The grievor initiated a work refusal under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, which the Ministry of Labour determined did not meet the criteria for a work refusal.

The employer subsequently held a fact-finding meeting and issued a conciliatory letter closing the issue without imposing discipline.

The union grieved, alleging the employer's actions constituted a reprisal for the work refusal.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding the grievor's conduct was insubordinate and the employer's response did not breach the collective agreement.

The parties entered into a memorandum of settlement requiring the grievor to undergo a mask fitness test in accordance with the employer's Respiratory Protection Program.

During the test, the grievor achieved a seal, but failed the visual examination step because he had facial hair where the mask contacted his face.

The union argued the test was unfair because a seal was achieved.

The arbitrator held that the test was fair and complied with the policy, which strictly prohibits facial hair in the seal area for safety reasons.

The grievance alleging a breach of the settlement was dismissed.

The complainant was discharged by the employer and subsequently filed a complaint with the Public Service Grievance Board.

The employer raised a preliminary objection, arguing that the Board lacked jurisdiction because the complainant failed to file the Form 1 Application within the mandatory 14-day time limit prescribed by Ontario Regulation 378/07.

The Board agreed, finding that the time limits in the regulation are mandatory and that it has no statutory authority to extend them.

Consequently, the complaint was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Three Conservation Officers who are canine handlers filed grievances alleging the Employer failed to properly exercise its discretion when denying certain meal allowance claims.

The parties engaged in a med/arb process.

The Vice-Chair resolved the grievances by issuing a declaration that the Employer will reasonably apply the travel directive in the spirit as intended.

The union filed a grievance alleging that the employer's human resources software (WIN) discriminated against a transgender employee by lacking gender-neutral prefixes and pronouns.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the grievance, arguing that its addition of the category 'unknown' to the system fully satisfied its duty to accommodate under the Human Rights Code.

The arbitrator dismissed the motion as premature, holding that evidence was required to assess whether the accommodation adequately addressed the specific nature of the alleged discrimination regarding gender identity and expression.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

The respondent requested that the application be deferred because the applicant had filed a grievance based on the same facts and issues.

The Tribunal found that the facts and issues in both proceedings were the same and that the grievance was moving forward.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance proceedings.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging sex discrimination in employment.

The respondent Frost requested the application be dismissed as untimely under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant argued the allegations, spanning from September 2007 to March 2011, constituted a series of incidents.

The Tribunal found that the applicant alleged a series of similar incidents against the same supervisor, the last of which fell within the 12-month time period prior to filing.

The Tribunal concluded the allegations related to a series of incidents within the meaning of the Code and declined to dismiss the application as untimely.

The grievor, a Transportation Enforcement Officer, was discharged after pleading guilty to two counts of performing an indecent act while off duty.

The employer argued the conduct harmed its reputation and the grievor's ability to work with other law enforcement agencies, relying on the Millhaven criteria.

The arbitrator found the employer had cause to discipline the grievor for his off-duty conduct, as it had the potential to negatively affect the Ministry's reputation and operations.

However, considering mitigating factors including the grievor's medical diagnosis, treatment efforts, and low risk of reoffending, the arbitrator concluded discharge was excessive.

The grievor was reinstated without compensation, effectively serving a lengthy unpaid suspension.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss a series of grievances filed by correctional officers, arguing that because no discipline was ultimately imposed following an investigation into a work stoppage, the issues were moot and there was no live controversy.

The Grievance Settlement Board reviewed the grievances and found that several alleged ongoing harassment, discrimination, and reprisal for exercising health and safety rights, rather than merely seeking the removal of disciplinary letters.

Applying the doctrine of mootness, the Board concluded that these allegations constituted a live controversy between the parties.

The employer's motion to dismiss was therefore dismissed, and the matters were ordered to proceed to hearing.

The applicant, a former Superintendent, alleged she was terminated because of her race, ethnic origin, and creed, and for raising concerns about systemic discrimination against Muslims.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed the applicant's request for production of various documents.

Applying the standard of 'arguable relevance', the Tribunal ordered the respondent to produce several categories of documents, including personnel files, communications regarding the termination of another Deputy Superintendent, and employment systems review reports, while denying requests for documents lacking sufficient nexus to the issues in dispute.

The union sought an adjournment of the grievance arbitration hearing because the grievor was ill and unable to attend.

The employer did not object to the adjournment but sought terms.

The arbitrator granted the adjournment, ordering the grievor to provide independent medical documentation supporting his absence and directing the union to provide full written particulars of its claim prior to the next hearing date.

The applicant requested a last-minute adjournment of her human rights hearing, claiming she mistakenly believed the matter would settle and was unprepared.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that hoping for a settlement is not an exceptional circumstance justifying an adjournment under its Practice Direction.

When the applicant subsequently failed to attend the scheduled hearing, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the ground of disability.

Shortly before the scheduled hearing, the applicant requested an adjournment.

The Tribunal denied the request, stating that reasons would follow, and ordered the hearing to proceed as scheduled.