Stephen Patterson

During the cross-examination of an employer witness, it became apparent that notes taken during meetings with employees as part of a disciplinary process had not been provided to the union.

The union requested a production order to ensure the employer produced all documents relating to testimony to be given by the employer's final three witnesses.

The Grievance Settlement Board granted the request and ordered the employer to produce all documents related to the e-mail investigation, including notes from meetings and documents in the possession of specific individuals.

The union grieved the layoff of Parental Support Workers (PSWs) and the transfer of some of their duties (defending arrears in family court) to lawyers in the Ministry's legal services branch.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that the transfer of family court work to lawyers violated an implied term of the collective agreement protecting bargaining-unit work, as the work was sufficient to occupy two full-time employees and historically belonged exclusively to PSWs.

However, the Board found that the grievors were not entitled to follow the work to the legal services branch under Article 20, because the transferred duties constituted much less than 50% of their former workload.

Finally, the Board concluded that the Ministry's broader decision to discontinue PSW services was a reasonable exercise of management rights, rationally related to the reorganization of the welfare system.

The union filed numerous grievances challenging the employer's implementation of its 'underfill' policy for the Transportation Enforcement Officer classification series, where less qualified applicants were hired and paid at a lower rate until fully qualified.

The parties reached a settlement on a go-forward protocol but could not agree on compensation for the grievors.

The arbitrator directed the employer to pay $1,000 to each of the grievors listed in the appendix.

The Employer disciplined 66 employees, discharging six, for contravening the Workplace Discrimination and Harassment Prevention policy and the IT policy by sending and receiving sexually explicit and inappropriate e-mails.

The Union grieved the discharges, arguing they were an excessive response.

In a preliminary phase to determine if the discharges could possibly be upheld based on the Employer's best case, the arbitrator found that the grievors engaged in serious misconduct by distributing highly offensive material, which contributed to a poisoned work environment.

The arbitrator concluded that the discharges could potentially be upheld, denying reinstatement at this stage and directing the hearing to continue on the merits.

In an ongoing union grievance alleging that the employer's reorganization of work in ODSP offices violated the collective agreement by increasing employee stress and health risks, the union called an expert witness.

Following the expert's testimony, the union requested case management to expedite the complex hearing.

The Grievance Settlement Board directed the employer to provide particulars of its position on the expert's report and scheduled the next hearing day for mediation, requiring persons with settlement authority to attend.

In a med/arb proceeding under the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act, the Grievance Settlement Board issued an interim award ordering the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care to post three Business Analyst positions in the Systems Officer series within the Assistive Devices Program.

The respondent brought a motion to dismiss the applicants' judicial review application for delay.

The Divisional Court acknowledged substantial delay but found the applicants' unchallenged explanations supported permitting the matter to continue.

The court noted the respondent had not demonstrated prejudice and had taken no prior steps to address the delay.

The motion to dismiss was denied, and the court directed the matter to proceed on the merits.

The Employer brought a motion to consolidate two grievances concerning job classifications and work assignments with a third grievance concerning health and safety and workload issues.

The Grievance Settlement Board denied the motion, finding that the grievances raised distinct allegations that only tangentially touched on the same facts.

Consolidating the grievances would delay proceedings, result in additional costs, and complicate the resolution of the individual grievances.

The union filed a grievance alleging the employer improperly staffed the Ministry by using agency employees to perform bargaining unit work.

In an interim award, the Grievance Settlement Board determined two legal issues.

First, the Board found that agency employees in the Trillium Drug Program were performing work normally performed by bargaining unit members on a regular and seasonal basis.

Second, the Board held that the employer could not legally have this work done by agency employees.

Applying previous jurisprudence, the Board found an implied term in the collective agreement prohibiting the employer from using non-bargaining unit employees to perform bargaining unit work, which extended to contracted-in agency employees.

The Board concluded it had jurisdiction to order the employer to post classified positions and cease using agency staff for seasonal unclassified positions.

The union grieved the discipline of several employees for inappropriate use of email and computer equipment.

On the first day of the hearing, the parties discussed production and procedural issues.

The Vice-Chairperson ordered the Ministry to produce investigation reports and related documents concerning non-bargaining unit employees in connection with internet or email abuse.

The union alleged that the employer improperly surplussed Parental Support Workers (PSWs) when their duties were reorganized and transferred to other components of the Ministry, including outside the bargaining unit.

The Grievance Settlement Board determined that the employer's reorganization did not inherently violate the collective agreement or section 22(4) of the Public Service Act.

However, the Board found that the union could potentially establish a violation if the largest portion of the PSWs' duties (over 50%) was transferred intact to the Legal Services Branch, or if the transfer of work outside the bargaining unit violated an implied restriction.

The matter was deferred for further evidence and argument.

The union grieved that the employer contravened the collective agreement's requirement to defer a classification system overhaul by introducing a modernized job description format and a new internal job evaluation decision-making process.

The arbitrator found that the new internal process merely changed who made decisions on the employer's behalf and did not alter the classification system itself.

Furthermore, the modernized job description format only made changes of form, not substance, and did not affect the application of the existing classification standards.

The grievance was dismissed, though the arbitrator noted the Board would have jurisdiction to enforce the collective agreement's classification provisions despite section 52 of the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act.

During negotiations, the parties signed a Memorandum of Agreement regarding strike-related activity.

The Employer withheld sick leave pay from employees it alleged were participating in an illegal strike, but later withdrew its intention to impose discipline.

The Union brought a preliminary motion arguing that the withdrawal of discipline removed the grounds for denying sick leave and sought an order for payment.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the motion, noting the Employer still maintained the employees were not ill.

The Board also established an expedited process for litigating the individual sick leave claims, requiring will-say statements and supporting documentation.

The union filed grievances on behalf of six employees whose jobs became surplus following the reorganization of social assistance programs.

The employer raised four preliminary objections: that the grievances were barred by a prior memorandum of agreement, that the health and safety claims were barred by a prior union grievance settlement, that the Board lacked jurisdiction to review management's workload decisions absent improper motive, and that the grievors lacked standing to challenge other employees' workloads.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that the memorandum of agreement barred claims under article 20 but not article 6, and dismissed the remaining three preliminary objections, allowing the grievances to proceed.

The Grievor, a Staff Psychiatrist, filed grievances alleging that the Employer breached his employment contract by reassigning him from Unit Director to a lower-rated position for health reasons, and by subsequently harassing him regarding sick leave and medical assessments.

The Public Service Grievance Board found that the Grievor's severe arthritic condition caused extensive absences, justifying the reassignment under s. 11(3) of Regulation 977 to ensure proper functioning of the unit.

The Board also found the Employer's actions regarding medical assessments and restricting the Grievor's access to office equipment while on sick leave were reasonable and justified.

The grievances were dismissed.

The parties reached a consent agreement to resolve multiple grievances concerning reporting pay, set-up and close-down time, and down time for unclassified court support staff.

The union agreed to withdraw the grievances, and the employer agreed to implement a new policy effective May 1, 2000.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued the terms as a consent order and remained seized of the matter for implementation purposes.

The grievors filed a grievance alleging that their right to a safe working environment under the collective agreement was infringed because smoking by inmates and staff was permitted at the Whitby Jail.

Subsequent to the filing of the grievance, the employer instituted a no-smoking policy at the facility.

The parties agreed that the issue was moot, though the grievors expressed concerns regarding the smoking policy at the new mega jails where they would likely be transferred upon the closure of the Whitby Jail.

The employer's counsel agreed to pass these concerns to senior staff.

The grievance was dismissed as moot.

The respondent sought to dismiss the application on the basis that the applicants did not constitute a female job class, and issued a summons to the Pay Equity Commissioner for various personnel records.

The applicants also issued a summons to a Review Officer.

The Pay Equity Office objected, arguing the summonses breached the qualified privilege under section 31 of the Pay Equity Act.

The Tribunal found extraordinary circumstances existed to grant consent for the summonses because the applicants themselves were Review Officers, but limited the scope of documentary production to protect personal identifying information and quashed the applicants' summons for irrelevant documents.

The applicant, a correctional officer, was suspended after refusing to perform full duties in a young offender unit, citing medical restrictions from a recent injury.

The employer had withdrawn an offer of modified duties based on a Workers' Compensation Board finding that the applicant was fit for full duties, ignoring a mandatory medical examination report that outlined specific restrictions.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the applicant was acting in compliance with and seeking enforcement of the Occupational Health and Safety Act when he asserted a health and safety risk and refused the assignment.

The Board concluded that the employer violated section 50(1) of the OHSA by suspending the applicant and ordered full compensation for lost wages and benefits.

The applicant groups of employees and the respondent Crown reached a settlement regarding pay equity complaints.

The parties jointly requested an adjournment of the proceedings.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal adjourned the matters sine die on consent, noting they would be terminated in one year unless brought on for hearing.