Stewart McMahon

The grievors, group sales representatives for Ontario Place Corporation, received surplus notices and filed grievances alleging bad faith and discrimination.

The employer brought a preliminary motion arguing that the grievances disclosed no prima facie case.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the employer's motion, finding that the facts asserted, if true, were capable of establishing the alleged violations, and directed that the hearing continue on the merits.

The employer brought a motion to dismiss numerous grievances alleging a breach of displacement rights under the collective agreement, arguing they were referred to arbitration outside the mandatory time limits.

The union conceded the grievances were referred late due to an administrative error but argued it was inequitable to deny the grievors access to arbitration.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that it lacked jurisdiction under the collective agreement and section 48(16) of the Labour Relations Act to extend the time limits for referral to arbitration.

The grievances were dismissed.

The grievor, a correctional officer, was terminated for his involvement in an incident where an inmate suffered significant injuries.

The Employer initiated an investigation and subsequently terminated the grievor for unauthorized use of force and failing to submit a proper occurrence report.

The grievor was later charged criminally with assault causing bodily harm.

The Union brought a motion to adjourn the arbitration proceedings pending the outcome of the criminal trial, arguing that the criminal conviction would be conclusive evidence and raising concerns about inconsistent results and the impact of the arbitration on the criminal proceedings.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the motion, finding that the expected delay of over a year was excessive and unreasonable for all parties.

The grievor failed to appear at the scheduled grievance arbitration hearing.

With the agreement of the parties, the Grievance Settlement Board ordered that the grievances would be deemed dismissed in two weeks unless the union provided submissions with reasonable justification for the grievor's absence.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of race and colour after an OLG employee confiscated his Winners Circle Rewards card and had him removed from the premises.

The respondent asserted the card was confiscated because the applicant breached the rules by sharing it with others.

At a summary hearing, the applicant admitted to sharing the card and could not point to any evidence linking the confiscation to his race or colour.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as having no reasonable prospect of success.

The parties in a grievance arbitration regarding surplus notice and bumping rights agreed on a disclosure protocol, except for one paragraph.

The Association sought to include a paragraph requiring the employer to provide a summary of reasons why the grievor was not eligible for positions identified by the Association.

The employer objected, arguing it improperly shifted the burden of proof and was premature.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the inclusion of the disputed paragraph, finding it would facilitate an efficient hearing and did not alter the burden of proof, as the employer's obligation would only be triggered after the Association provided its initial disclosure.

The union filed a policy grievance alleging the employer violated the collective agreement's employment stability provisions regarding temporary assignments for surplus employees.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss portions of the claim for failing to establish a prima facie case.

The arbitrator dismissed the employer's motion regarding the union's claim that the employer must track and match temporary assignments, and the claim that surplus employees should be considered when fixed-term contracts are renewed.

However, the arbitrator allowed the employer's motion to dismiss the union's claim that surplus employees have displacement rights over fixed-term or acting employees, finding no basis for such rights in the collective agreement.

The union grieved the employer's decision not to award the grievor the position of Graphic Design and Print Operator.

The employer conceded that it failed to check the grievor's references or review his internal performance plans during the job competition.

The union also raised concerns about the participation of the grievor's immediate supervisor on the selection panel, given a prior workplace harassment complaint.

The arbitrator found that while it was not certain the grievor would have been the successful candidate absent the defects, the possibility could not be excluded.

The employer was directed to rerun the competition between the grievor and the incumbent.

The grievor filed grievances alleging discipline without just cause, discrimination, and harassment.

Following unsuccessful mediation, the parties agreed to proceed with litigation via a truncated process.

The parties and the grievor agreed that the grievor would undergo an Independent Medical Evaluation (IME).

The Board ordered the parties to agree on the evaluator, the questions to be asked, and the information to be provided, retaining jurisdiction to resolve any disputes regarding the IME process.

The Union filed a grievance regarding the payment of shift premiums for 12.5-hour shifts at the Vanier facility.

The issue was whether employees were entitled to a prorated shift premium for the first and last 15 minutes of their shifts under the collective agreement, which provided a premium 'per hour for all hours worked'.

The Ministry argued that the language required employees to work a full hour to receive the premium.

The Grievance Settlement Board allowed the grievance, finding that the phrase 'per hour for all hours worked' clearly includes the concept of pro rata payment for partial hours worked.

The Union filed group grievances alleging that the scheduling of court reporters for weekend and statutory holiday bail hearings at the Old City Hall courthouse was inequitable and violated the collective agreement's provisions on management rights, discrimination, and health and safety.

The Employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the grievances, arguing there was no prima facie case and noting the absence of medical evidence.

The Grievance Settlement Board denied the motion, holding that the Union's allegations of fact must be taken as true at this stage and that dismissing the grievances without hearing the grievors' evidence would violate natural justice.

The union filed a grievance alleging the employer violated the collective agreement by denying the grievor participation in a compressed work week pilot project, assigning him less meaningful work, and destroying his files.

The employer moved to dismiss the grievance for failing to disclose a prima facie violation.

The arbitrator granted the motion, finding that the compressed work week was a trial project the grievor had no entitlement to join, the work assignments fell within management rights, and the destruction of files did not engage collective agreement rights.

The grievance was dismissed.

The parties requested a nonprecedential and nonbinding decision without reasons.

The Grievance Settlement Board considered the stipulated facts, case law, and arguments of the parties, and dismissed the grievance.