73 total
Motion to dismiss health and safety grievances for lack of a prima facie case partially granted.
The employer brought a motion to dismiss seven individual grievances alleging health and safety violations at the Maplehurst Correctional Complex on the basis that they failed to make out a prima facie case or constituted an improper expansion of the grievance.
The arbitrator denied the motion with respect to the Access Grievance, finding that the union pleaded sufficient facts to establish that the lack of access to standing orders created a safety risk.
The arbitrator granted the motion and dismissed the Staff Shortages Grievances, the Proximity Grievance, and the Training Grievance, finding that they relied on unsupported conclusions rather than facts, and in some cases, improperly expanded the scope of the original grievances.
Union's objection to hearing employer's jurisdictional argument as a preliminary motion allowed.
The employer sought to bring a preliminary motion arguing that the Grievance Settlement Board lacked jurisdiction to award human rights damages for a psychological injury compensable under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act.
The union objected to hearing this as a preliminary matter.
The Arbitrator allowed the union's objection, finding that bifurcating the hearing would not be efficient, as the jurisdictional issue was complex, intertwined with the merits, and might become moot if the grievance failed.
The matter was ordered to proceed on the merits.
Arbitrator issued directions requiring absent grievors to confirm intention to proceed after attending grievors withdrew.
At a hearing for a group grievance involving nine grievors, only two attended.
During the hearing, the two attending grievors withdrew from the grievance.
The Arbitrator issued an order directing the Union to consult with the remaining grievors to determine if they intend to continue, requiring their physical presence at future dates, and deeming any grievor who fails to confirm their intention by a specified date to have withdrawn.
Grievances dismissed after grievor failed to attend hearing and union presented no evidence.
The grievor failed to attend the scheduled arbitration hearing despite receiving proper notice and being warned of the consequences by union counsel.
The union presented no evidence on the remaining issues of accommodation, harassment, and discrimination.
The employer requested that the grievances be dismissed and the grievor's actions be declared an abuse of process.
The arbitrator dismissed the grievances due to the lack of evidence but declined to decide whether the grievor's actions constituted an abuse of process.
Consent order issued for a six-month trial period assigning the grievor to pre-trial duties.
The parties appeared before the Grievance Settlement Board regarding multiple grievances.
Based on materials and statements, including the grievor's assertion that he could fulfill the duties of a Court Clerk and Registrar during pre-trial proceedings without accommodation other than periodic standing and stretching, the Arbitrator ordered a six-month trial period for pre-trial assignments by consent.
The balance of the grievances were dismissed on consent, with a letter of reprimand replaced by a letter of counsel.
Board lacks jurisdiction to award damages for workplace injuries compensable under the WSIA.
The union grieved that the employer violated health and safety provisions when correctional officers were exposed to smoke from fires set by inmates.
The employer brought a preliminary motion arguing that the Board lacked jurisdiction to award monetary redress or damages because the injuries were compensable under the Workers Safety and Insurance Act (WSIA).
The arbitrator upheld the employer's motion, finding that the WSIA's historic trade-off precludes awarding damages for compensable workplace injuries, even if the union frames the claim as a series of collective agreement breaches.
Grievance allowed; absences protected by the Employment Standards Act cannot trigger termination under a settlement agreement.
The grievor was terminated from her fixed-term contract as a Correctional Officer for exceeding the ten permitted absences outlined in a prior Memorandum of Settlement.
The union grieved the termination, arguing that ten of her fourteen absences were protected personal emergency leave days under section 50 of the Employment Standards Act, 2000, primarily related to caring for her son's severe migraines.
The arbitrator held that the parties could not contract out of the minimum standards of the Employment Standards Act.
Because ten of the absences were statutorily protected, they could not be counted toward the threshold for termination under the settlement.
The grievance was allowed and the grievor was reinstated to complete her contract.
Human rights applications re-activated and consolidated due to common respondent and factual matrix.
The applicants filed requests to re-activate and consolidate their human rights applications against the respondent.
The applications had previously been deferred pending grievance proceedings, which were subsequently withdrawn.
The Tribunal granted the requests, finding it appropriate to re-activate the applications and consolidate them given they involve the same respondent, subject matter, and arise out of the same set of facts, avoiding a multiplicity of proceedings.
Union directed to obtain medical opinion on grievor's fitness to participate in arbitration and provide particulars.
During a mediation session, the Grievance Settlement Board directed the union to request a medical opinion from the grievor's doctor regarding her fitness to return to work and participate in the arbitration process.
The union was further directed to provide particulars of the grievance to the employer within 90 days of obtaining a medical note confirming her ability to participate.
Employer's motion to suppress informant's identity dismissed; procedural fairness requires disclosure for cross-examination.
The employer brought a motion to suppress the identity of an employee ('Officer Doe') who reported information that led to the complainant's termination.
The employer argued that the identity should be protected by informant privilege and the disclosure of wrongdoing provisions of the Public Service of Ontario Act, 2006.
The complainant argued that procedural fairness required disclosure, particularly because the employer had entered an occurrence report written by Officer Doe into evidence.
The Board dismissed the employer's motion, holding that procedural fairness and the principles of natural justice required the disclosure of Officer Doe's identity to allow the complainant the opportunity to cross-examine the individual.
Employer ordered to immediately produce requested documentation to the union prior to the scheduled hearing.
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.
Board has jurisdiction over complaint for retroactive managerial pay improvements not linked to performance evaluation.
The complainant, a former manager whose position was declared surplus, elected to exit with salary continuance until his retirement.
Following his departure, the employer announced retroactive pay improvements for managers.
The complainant sought these payments but was denied on the basis that he was on a leave of absence pending retirement.
The employer raised a preliminary objection that the Board lacked jurisdiction because the complaint related to pay for performance.
The Board dismissed the preliminary objection, finding that the claimed lump sums and salary adjustments were not linked to performance evaluation.
The Board deferred the determination of the complainant's eligibility under the policies pending further submissions.
Employer's mid-hearing application to exclude post-grievance evidence dismissed due to delay and relevance.
During a grievance arbitration regarding alleged excessive discipline and workplace harassment, the employer brought an application to restrict the union from calling evidence about events that occurred after the grievances were filed.
The events involved a vacation request and the removal of newspaper articles about the grievor's previous successful discrimination litigation.
The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the application, finding that the union had provided particulars of these events three years prior, they formed part of the narrative arc, and it was too late for the employer to object.
Grievor's request to personally withdraw grievance denied as only the union has carriage rights.
The grievor requested to personally withdraw the balance of her grievance to proceed before the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal, citing delays, travel costs, and a desire to represent herself.
The union did not request the withdrawal, and the employer opposed it.
The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the request, holding that only the union has carriage rights to withdraw a grievance, not an individual grievor.
The Board also noted that the issues already decided were related to the remaining issues, and issued procedural orders to expedite the remainder of the hearing.
Identity of medical expert protected by litigation privilege; union interview notes ordered produced.
In a grievance arbitration concerning a five-day suspension and allegations of harassment, two issues arose regarding document production.
The employer sought unredacted medical records of the grievor and the union's notes from interviews with coworkers, while the union sought to compel the employer to disclose the identity of any medical expert reviewing the records.
The Grievance Settlement Board held that the identity of the employer's medical expert is protected by litigation privilege.
The Board also found that the union's interview notes were not protected by litigation privilege, as their dominant purpose was preparation for an allegation meeting rather than litigation, and ordered their production at the close of the employer's case.
Union ordered to provide full particulars of grievance allegations limited to events after May 2015.
The Grievance Settlement Board issued a procedural order requiring the Union to provide full particulars of all allegations contained in three grievances by March 1, 2017.
The particulars are limited to events occurring after May 29, 2015, pursuant to prior Minutes of Settlement.
The Ministry was directed to advise the Union of any preliminary objections by April 1, 2017.
Bargaining unit exclusion for 'HR Ontario' employees ceased to have effect when the entity was eliminated.
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.
Application dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as complainant was an irregular, fixed-term employee.
The complainant filed an application alleging he was improperly terminated due to a disability.
The employer raised a preliminary objection that the Board lacked jurisdiction because the complainant was employed on a fixed-term contract on an irregular or on-call basis.
The Board reviewed the employment records and schedules, confirming the complainant's status as an irregular, fixed-term employee.
Under subsection 5(2)5 of O. Reg. 378/07, such employees are not eligible to file a complaint.
Consequently, the Board found it had no jurisdiction and dismissed the application.
Board ordered union to provide outstanding disclosure and particulars or face evidentiary preclusion.
The union filed grievances alleging the employer failed to make reasonable provisions for safety and health following an incident at the Toronto South Detention Centre.
The employer brought a motion to dismiss two grievances for failure to prosecute and raised concerns about the union's failure to comply with a prior Board order regarding disclosure and particulars.
The union withdrew one grievance and requested time to seek instructions on the other.
The Grievance Settlement Board directed the union to advise whether it would pursue the remaining grievance and ordered the union to provide all outstanding disclosure and particulars by a specified date, failing which it would be precluded from leading evidence on related assertions.
Motion to strike particulars partially granted where union sought to unduly expand individual grievances.
The employer brought a motion to strike certain particulars provided by the union in relation to individual grievances filed by six correctional officers who were trapped in a room due to a computer malfunction.
The employer argued the particulars constituted an undue expansion of the original grievances.
The Grievance Settlement Board partially granted the motion, striking particulars that alleged general risks of forcible confinement and risks to inmates, as they were not inherent in the original individual grievances, while allowing evidence of such risks to be led at the remedial phase if relevant to the impact on the grievors.
