Roslyn Baichoo

The union requested a remedy for the employer's failure to produce documents as ordered by the Grievance Settlement Board.

The employer admitted non-compliance, citing limited resources devoted to settlement efforts.

The Board directed an Assistant Deputy Minister to ensure compliance by a specified deadline and to attend a subsequent hearing to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt if compliance was not achieved.

The union requested an order directing the employer to produce documents relevant to grievances alleging the employer failed to consider impacted employees for temporary assignments under Appendix 40 of the collective agreement.

The employer opposed the broad production sought but could not explain why the documents were not arguably relevant.

The Grievance Settlement Board granted the union's request and ordered the employer to produce all documents relating to communications and considerations regarding temporary assignments for impacted employees during the relevant period.

In a grievance arbitration concerning a transfer and subsequent surplussing, the employer sought full particulars before complying with the Association's request for document disclosure.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that a blanket assertion of inadequate particulars does not justify withholding arguably relevant documents.

The Board ordered the employer to comply with the disclosure request, noting that the employer could object to specific documents on grounds of privilege or confidentiality, and could seek specific particulars if needed.

The employer raised preliminary objections to the hearing of the complainant's application, arguing the issues were moot and beyond the Board's jurisdiction.

The complainant alleged the employer failed to follow its Workplace Discrimination and Harassment Policy (WDHP) regarding complaints against him, violated his third-party rights in settling grievances with the complainants, and subjected him to disguised discipline through reassignment.

The Board held that the issues relating to the withdrawn WDHP complaints and settled grievances were moot and would not proceed.

However, the Board allowed the allegation of disguised discipline to proceed to a hearing, finding it raised an arguable case.

The appellant sought costs following a trial and appeal.

Based on a settlement offer dated March 13, 2002, the appellant was entitled to partial indemnity costs up to the date of the offer and substantial indemnity costs thereafter.

The Court of Appeal fixed the appellant's costs at trial at $60,000 inclusive of disbursements and GST, noting that the requested fees exceeded trial counsel's actual billable rate.

The appellant accepted a commissioned sales position with the respondent and resigned from his previous job.

After starting work, he was required to sign a 'Solicitor's Agreement' that severely restricted his entitlement to commissions.

The appellant later resigned and sued for unpaid commissions.

The trial judge dismissed the claim, finding the agreement enforceable.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the Solicitor's Agreement was an amendment to the employment contract and was unenforceable for lack of consideration, as the employer did not provide anything of value, such as increased job security, in exchange for the employee signing it.

The appellant was awarded his unpaid commissions.

The Grievance Settlement Board heard three grievances filed by the grievor.

The first grievance was dismissed on the employer's undertaking to remove certain letters from the grievor's personnel file.

The second grievance was declared moot.

The third grievance, challenging a job competition, was adjourned on the union's undertaking that it would be dismissed if a reference letter from a judge was confirmed as accurate.

The judge confirmed the reference, but the grievor refused to withdraw the grievance.

The employer brought a motion to dismiss based on the undertaking.

The Board granted the motion and dismissed the third grievance.

The grievor, an administrative secretary, filed grievances alleging that the employer discriminated against her on the basis of race and union activity by denying her training, secondments, and promotional opportunities.

The union argued that the employer's failure to follow through on recommendations from an internal investigation and a grievance response to conduct a performance review and provide training plans justified an inference of discrimination.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievances, finding that the grievor's subjective belief of discrimination was insufficient and that there was no objective evidence to support an inference that race or union activity played a role in the employer's decisions.

At the hearing for this grievance, the union stated it had no dispute with the employer's actions, and the parties agreed there was no difference between them.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that under section 7(3) of the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act, there must be a difference between the parties for the Board to have jurisdiction.

The grievance was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.