Ryan Newell

The union grieved the employer's failure to offer Tier 1 overtime opportunities to Tier 3 employees, specifically the grievor.

The employer admitted the breach of the collective agreement but argued the grievor was not qualified to perform the work and would not have accepted the shifts anyway.

The arbitrator found that the grievor was capable of performing the Tier 1 work.

However, based on the evidence, the arbitrator concluded that the grievor would not have accepted the overtime shifts had they been offered.

Therefore, no monetary remedy was awarded.

The union filed a grievance alleging the employer violated the collective agreement by failing to offer overtime to Tier 3 employees.

At step 1 of the grievance procedure, the employer acknowledged the error and committed to posting overtime for both classifications in the future, but declined to pay the requested compensation.

The union advanced the grievance to step 2, where the employer denied the grievance, stating it was unfeasible for Tier 3 employees to perform the work.

The union raised a preliminary issue, arguing the step 1 response was a binding concession on liability.

The arbitrator agreed, finding the employer's step 1 response was a clear and unequivocal admission of a breach, leaving only the issue of remedy to be determined.

The Association requested an order for the immediate production of financial and employment documentation relevant to a policy grievance concerning the monetary entitlement of certain employees excluded from the bargaining unit.

The employer agreed to produce the documents but only simultaneously with their presentation to the employees at a group meeting.

The Grievance Settlement Board granted the Association's request, ordering immediate production to ensure efficiency and adequate preparation time before the scheduled hearing.

The Association filed a policy grievance alleging the Employer violated the collective agreement by continuing to exclude certain employees from the bargaining unit under the 'HR Ontario' exclusion after HR Ontario was eliminated in a 2014 restructuring.

The Employer argued the exclusion should be interpreted functionally to exclude anyone involved in the delivery of HR services.

The Grievance Settlement Board upheld the grievance, finding no evidence that the parties intended the exclusion to apply functionally rather than based on the specific organizational entity named in the agreement.

As HR Ontario no longer exists, the exclusion has no practical effect.

In a grievance concerning whether certain employees were excluded from the bargaining unit following an employer restructuring that eliminated 'HR Ontario', the parties disputed the order of proceeding and the burden of proof.

The Grievance Settlement Board declined to determine the onus of proof as a preliminary matter, reserving it until all evidence was heard.

However, the Board ordered the employer to proceed first with its evidence, finding that the employer possessed the specific and complete information regarding the restructuring and the duties of the individuals in question, making it fairer and more efficient for the employer to present its case first.

The applicant filed an application alleging that the respondent co-operative contravened Minutes of Settlement by failing to offer her an internal transfer to a specified unit when it became available.

The Tribunal reviewed the respondent's vacancy records and found that none of the specified units had become available since the execution of the settlement.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant had been misinformed and dismissed the application.