Stewart McMahon

The union filed grievances alleging the employer violated the collective agreement and the Occupational Health and Safety Act by revoking the 'conservation officer' designation for Agriculture Investigators, which resulted in the removal of their side-arms and pepper spray.

After the union closed its case, the employer moved for a non-suit.

Applying the standard that a non-suit must be denied if there is some evidence to support a prima facie case, the Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the employer's motion.

Pursuant to the parties' agreement, the Board provided no reasons for its conclusion.

The union filed grievances regarding workplace accommodation and allegations of past discrimination and harassment for a correctional officer.

In a bifurcated process, the arbitrator first considered whether the grievor required accommodation on a go-forward basis regarding her ability to climb stairs.

Following a jointly agreed independent medical examination by an orthopedic surgeon, which concluded the grievor had no physical limitation preventing her from climbing stairs 7-10 times per shift, the arbitrator found no accommodation was needed.

The arbitrator then issued procedural directions for the second phase of the hearing concerning liability for past discrimination and harassment.

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 Employer requested further and better particulars regarding several grievances filed by the union on behalf of the grievor.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered a schedule for the Employer to request further particulars, for the Union to provide them, and for the Employer to identify any preliminary objections, with a hearing scheduled to address those objections.

The applicant sought judicial review of several decisions relating to his 2003 dismissal from the Ministry of Environment, including decisions by the OLRB, the Grievance Settlement Board, and a Superior Court judge who dismissed his civil action.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding it lacked jurisdiction to hear an appeal of the Superior Court's final order, which belongs in the Court of Appeal.

The Court also held that setting aside a private settlement agreement is not the exercise of a statutory power subject to judicial review, and that the OLRB decisions were both out of time for review and reasonable.

The application was deemed an abuse of process.

The employer applied to dismiss the grievance without a hearing on the basis that it disclosed no prima facie case.

The grievor, a 33-year employee, resigned after being informed that his employment would be terminated following a workplace investigation into alleged inappropriate comments.

The union grieved, seeking damages for a flawed investigation, but did not seek to undo the resignation.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that because the grievor voluntarily resigned to avoid termination and litigation, the adequacy of the investigation was irrelevant.

The grievance was dismissed as there was no case to meet.

At the commencement of a grievance arbitration hearing regarding a poisoned work environment, several grievors failed to attend.

The employer moved for an order requiring the non-attending grievors to advise whether they intended to pursue their grievances and to provide reasons for their absence.

The employer also requested an order for additional particulars.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the non-attending grievors to advise if they wished to pursue their grievances and provide explanations for their absence by a specified date, failing which their grievances would be dismissed.

The Board also ordered the union to provide the requested additional particulars.

The employer brought two preliminary motions in a series of grievances alleging workplace harassment and discrimination.

The first motion argued that the union's particulars improperly expanded the scope of the grievances.

The Vice-Chair dismissed this motion, finding that a liberal reading of the grievances clearly indicated allegations of harassment and discrimination from the outset.

The second motion sought to limit the evidence to three years prior to the October 2013 grievance.

The Vice-Chair granted this motion in part, applying the Board's general three-year guideline but calculating it from the date of the first grievance in December 2012, while leaving open the possibility of admitting evidence of a specific 2004 incident if deemed relevant at the hearing.

The union filed grievances alleging excessive discipline and a failure to provide a workplace free of discrimination and harassment.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to strike out aspects of the union's claims and limit evidence regarding prior incidents.

The Grievance Settlement Board ruled that evidence of matters already determined by the Board or settled would not be entertained to avoid re-litigation.

However, evidence regarding a 2010 incident was permitted as it fell within the generally accepted three-year rule for establishing a course of harassing or discriminatory conduct.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the union's grievance as untimely, as it was filed six working days beyond the 30-day limit in the collective agreement.

The union acknowledged the delay but requested an extension of time.

Applying the Becker Milk factors, the Vice-Chair noted the employer conceded it would suffer no prejudice and that the nature of the grievance favoured an extension.

Although the reasons for the delay were not compelling, the short length of the delay and the lack of prejudice justified extending the time limit.

The employer's motion was dismissed.

The union filed a policy grievance alleging the employer violated the collective agreement by failing to post a full-time vacancy, relying instead on an unwritten job share agreement.

The union argued the job share agreement was invalid because it was not in writing.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that article 10.2.1 of the collective agreement did not explicitly require job share agreements to be in writing to be valid.

The Board concluded there was a valid meeting of the minds between the employees, the union, and the employer, and the employer had complied with the applicable provisions when offering the full-time position to the remaining job share employee.

The employer brought two preliminary motions in a grievance arbitration concerning the grievor's surplus and layoff.

The first motion sought to dismiss the union's claim of prohibited discrimination under the Human Rights Code for failing to disclose a prima facie case.

The second motion sought to restrict the scope of evidence to events occurring after the departure of the grievor's former manager, or alternatively, to exclude evidence of a 2005 assessment report.

The Grievance Settlement Board granted the first motion, finding that the pleaded facts did not support an inference that the employer perceived the grievor to have a disability.

On the second motion, the Board applied its three-year 'rule of thumb' for evidentiary scope, restricting evidence to events within three years of the grievance filing, but permitted the 2005 assessment report to be entered as an exhibit without hearing evidence regarding its accuracy or implementation.

In a grievance arbitration, the Employer requested further particulars from the Union.

After hearing submissions, the Grievance Settlement Board ordered the Union to provide the further particulars requested by the Employer.

The parties entered into a Memorandum of Settlement (MOS) to resolve several disputes, which included a provision for the employer to reimburse the complainant up to $5,000 for mutually agreed-upon educational courses relevant to her current or future roles.

The complainant sought approval for a master's certificate in Public Sector Management, which the employer denied on the basis that it was intended for current managers and executives.

The arbitrator, remaining seized of the MOS, found that the proposed course was a reasonable fit within the contemplation of the MOS given the complainant's goal of advancing to management.

The employer was directed to approve the course.

The Association filed a grievance alleging the employer failed to directly assign or provide bumping opportunities to a surplussed employee.

The employer raised a preliminary objection, arguing the employee waived all such rights when he elected the pension bridging option to retire under Surplus Factor 80.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that the collective agreement provisions for Surplus Factor 80 and pension bridging were independent.

The employee had no rights to direct assignment or bumping during the notice period because he utilized pension bridging.

However, based on the specific communications and the employer's failure to confirm pension eligibility as required, the employee did not knowingly waive his rights to direct assignment and bumping during the pre-notice period.

The preliminary objection was upheld in part.

The union grieved the employer's decision to award a Graphic Design and Print Operator position to the incumbent rather than the grievor following a rerun of the job competition.

The grievor alleged that the employer failed to consider his 'thank you binder' and improperly mentioned his prior grievance to a referee.

The arbitrator found that the employer's assessment, which scored the incumbent significantly higher than the grievor, was proper.

The arbitrator concluded that the binder was considered and would not have altered the outcome, and that the conversation with the referee had no negative impact on the selection process.

The grievance was dismissed.

The employer brought a motion for particulars regarding seven consolidated grievances alleging harassment and discrimination.

The union consented to the motion.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the union to provide particulars of the facts it intends to rely on, including the 'who, what, when and where' of the allegations, within 30 days.

The Employer brought preliminary motions in a grievance arbitration regarding a surplus employee's displacement rights.

The Employer argued the Union could only advance a claim to a single displacement position and sought to exclude the grievor's job description and revised Employee Portfolios from evidence.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that the Union could advance multiple claims to displacement opportunities but must do so in the sequential order mandated by the collective agreement.

The Board also ruled that the Redeployment Services Office was not required to consider the job description or the subsequently revised Employee Portfolios, rendering them inadmissible.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to employment because of disability.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because there were ongoing grievance proceedings before the Grievance Settlement Board related to the same issues and events.

The respondents supported deferral, and the applicant did not file submissions.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the conclusion of the grievance proceeding, noting that arbitrators have the power and responsibility to deal with the Code in relation to grievances.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued a procedural order regarding 11 grievances filed by the same grievor concerning workplace accommodation.

With the consent of the parties, the Vice-Chair ordered that the hearing be divided into three distinct parts: first, determining what accommodation is required for the future; second, determining liability for past events; and third, determining remedy if necessary.

The Board also issued production orders requiring the union to provide medical reports and particulars of the requested future accommodation, and the employer to advise if it intends to request an independent medical examination.