Sean White

The employer brought a motion to dismiss a grievance alleging workplace harassment on a preliminary basis, arguing it disclosed no prima facie case.

The grievor, a psychologist, alleged that the employer's repeated failure to respond to his inquiries regarding his classification and salary protection, and directing him to cease contacting Human Resources, constituted harassment.

The arbitrator found that, assuming the facts alleged were true, the employer's course of conduct could reasonably be seen as unwelcome and vexatious, establishing a viable case of workplace harassment.

The motion to dismiss was denied, and the grievance was allowed to proceed, with the exception of allegations regarding statements made by employer counsel at the OLRB, which were protected by absolute privilege.

The Union filed a grievance on behalf of an employee.

At the hearing, counsel advised the arbitrator of a related grievance scheduled for arbitration before a different arbitrator.

The arbitrator directed that the present grievance be listed for hearing on the same date with the related grievance, and noted that counsel for the Employer would contact Union counsel to discuss consolidation and the hearing process.

The Association grieved that an employee's benefit dispute was improperly processed as a civil suit against the insurance administrator rather than through the collective agreement's dispute resolution procedure.

The parties reached a tentative settlement but disagreed on whether the Employer must disclose the civil suit settlement document to the Association.

The Employer argued the document was irrelevant and protected by settlement privilege.

The Arbitrator ordered production, finding the document was central to the grievance and that the 'public good' exception to settlement privilege applied, as the Association had a right to verify the facts of the alleged breach of the collective agreement.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued a procedural order directing the Union to provide final particulars of its case by August 8, 2025.

The Employer was ordered to advise the Union of any preliminary issues or motions by September 5, 2025.

The hearing is scheduled to resume on September 23, 2025.

The Union filed a grievance alleging the Employer violated the collective agreement and the Ontario Human Rights Code by failing to offer off-season work to a seasonal Sawmill Interpreter.

The Employer raised a preliminary objection, arguing the grievance failed to disclose a prima facie case.

The Arbitrator dismissed the preliminary objection in part, finding the particulars supported an arguable claim of a collective agreement breach and discrimination based on perceived disability, but dismissed the claim of age discrimination.

Following a case conference call, the Arbitrator issued procedural orders scheduling further hearing dates for the grievance.

The Union was directed to provide a statement of particulars and respond to production requests by a specified date, with the Employer reserving the right to seek dismissal if deadlines are missed.

The Employer brought two motions to dismiss a Union grievance alleging a failure to provide insured benefits for diagnostic procedures.

The Employer argued the Union failed to establish a prima facie case and that the Arbitrator lacked jurisdiction because individual claims must be addressed by the Claims Review Subcommittee.

The Arbitrator dismissed both motions, finding the Union's particulars sufficient to establish a prima facie case and confirming jurisdiction to declare a collective agreement contravention.

However, the Arbitrator ordered the grievance held in abeyance until the individual denied claims are addressed by the Claims Review Subcommittee.

The parties convened for a mediation/arbitration regarding a grievance alleging violations of the collective agreement, the Occupational Health and Safety Act, and the Human Rights Code.

Following an unsuccessful mediation, the parties agreed to a procedural schedule for prehearing production and the exchange of witness declarations.

The arbitrator issued a case management decision formalizing the agreed-upon manner of proceeding and schedule.

The complainant requested that the Public Service Grievance Board reconsider its decision dismissing his complaint regarding a disciplinary suspension.

The original complaint was dismissed because the complainant failed to file his notice of proposal within the mandatory 14-day time limit under Regulation 378/07 of the Public Service of Ontario Act.

The Board declined to reconsider the decision, finding that the complainant's submissions regarding the merits of the discipline did not address the jurisdictional issue of untimeliness, and the Board lacks discretion to extend the mandatory time limits.

The complainant filed a grievance alleging the employer unfairly declared her position abandoned under section 42 of the Public Service of Ontario Act, 2006.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the complainant failed to file her Notice of Proposal within the mandatory 14-day time limit under O Reg 378/07.

The complainant argued the employer waived this objection by participating in mediation.

The Board held that the statutory time limits are substantive and cannot be waived.

Because the notice was filed 15 days after the complainant became aware of the decision, the Board lacked jurisdiction to hear the complaint on its merits.

The complaint was dismissed.

The complainant received a disciplinary suspension and filed a complaint with the Public Service Grievance Board.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the complainant failed to file a notice of proposal with the deputy minister within the mandatory 14-day period under O. Reg. 378/07.

The Board upheld the objection, finding that the 14-day time limit is jurisdictional and the Board has no discretion to extend it.

The complaint was dismissed.

The employer requested a case management conference call after the union failed to provide written particulars by the previously agreed-upon deadline.

The employer sought an order compelling the union to provide the particulars by September 29, 2023, failing which it would seek dismissal of the grievance.

The union explained the delay and did not object to the requested order.

The arbitrator ordered the union to provide its particulars by the requested date.

The grievor was terminated from her position as a bookkeeper at a courthouse after an audit revealed she had written cheques to herself and her daughter from court funds.

She was subsequently convicted of fraud and sentenced to jail.

The union grieved the termination.

The grievor failed to attend the first two scheduled arbitration hearing dates, despite the union's efforts to contact her.

The employer requested that the grievance be dismissed.

The arbitrator declined to dismiss the grievance immediately, instead granting an adjournment to give the grievor one final opportunity to attend the next scheduled hearing date, failing which the grievance would be dismissed.

In a grievance arbitration, the Grievance Settlement Board issued a procedural order requiring the union to produce all medical documentation it intends to rely on and any amended statement of particulars by specified deadlines.

The order stipulated that failure to meet the deadlines would permit the employer to proceed with its preliminary motions, and the union would be barred from providing further medical documentation or amended particulars absent extraordinary circumstances.

The employer brought a motion to dismiss the grievor's termination grievance due to her failure to attend scheduled hearings and her lack of communication with the union.

The grievor had been terminated for job abandonment after failing to return to work or provide medical information.

Despite numerous attempts by the union to contact her and a previous board order directing her to explain her non-attendance, the grievor did not respond or appear.

The arbitrator found that the grievor's conduct demonstrated a lack of interest in pursuing the grievance and that further delay would prejudice the employer.

The motion was granted and the grievance was dismissed.

The union referred three grievances to arbitration before holding the mandatory Formal Resolution Stage (FRS) meetings required by the collective agreement.

The employer raised a preliminary objection, arguing the grievances were improperly advanced.

The arbitrator upheld the objection, finding that the union's refusal to participate in the FRS meetings did not confer the right to unilaterally bypass the grievance procedure.

The arbitrator concluded there was no jurisdiction to hear the grievances as they were improperly advanced.

The union sought an adjournment of a scheduled hearing because the grievor had a conflicting Family Court matter.

The arbitrator granted the adjournment but ordered the grievor to provide documentary evidence of the court date.

The employer subsequently argued the provided documentation was insufficient and sought an order for better documentation.

The arbitrator found the grievor made a good faith effort to comply but ordered him to provide written information regarding when he became aware of the conflict and why he could not advise the Board earlier.

The Employer requested an order requiring the Union to provide written particulars of the allegations advanced in the grievances, specifically the 'who, what, when, and where'.

The Arbitrator granted the request, directing the Union to set out what was alleged to have been done, when, where, by what means, and by whom, and to identify any individuals whose actions were attributed to an organization.

The Arbitrator emphasized that conclusory statements based on unparticularized allegations of fact are insufficient.

The Union filed a policy grievance regarding the interpretation of the supplementary health benefits provision in the collective agreement, specifically whether it covers the charges of a psychologist who supervises a psychotherapist providing direct treatment to an employee.

The Employer argued that only direct, face-to-face services provided by a psychologist or social worker were covered.

The Arbitrator allowed the grievance, finding no ambiguity in the collective agreement's broad reference to 'charges for the services of a psychologist'.

The Arbitrator held that supervision is a recognized service within a psychologist's scope of practice that provides direct benefit to the client, and therefore falls within the covered services under the collective agreement.

The complainant, a Sergeant at the Toronto South Detention Centre, filed a complaint alleging workplace harassment, discrimination, and reprisals by co-workers and management.

The employer brought a preliminary objection to dismiss the complaint.

The Public Service Grievance Board dismissed the complaint, finding that it did not make out a prima facie case for a reprisal under the Public Service of Ontario Act because the complainant did not allege any protected political activity or protected disclosure of wrongdoing.

Furthermore, to the extent the complaint concerned working conditions, it was dismissed for failing to adhere to the mandatory statutory timelines set out in Ontario Regulation 378/07, which the Board has no jurisdiction to extend.