Suneel Bahal

The Grievance Settlement Board heard submissions from the parties regarding a grievance.

The Arbitrator directed the employer to pay the grievor $275.00 as damages without deduction, remaining seized with respect to implementation.

The grievor, a Black man employed as a Correctional Officer, alleged that the Employer engaged in systemic discrimination, harassment, and reprisal, preventing his career advancement.

He cited several incidents, including unsuccessful applications for management positions, a disciplinary meeting regarding an email he sent, a scheduling error, and an investigation into preferential treatment of an inmate.

The Grievance Settlement Board found it lacked jurisdiction over the management position competitions.

Regarding the other incidents, the Board concluded there was no direct or circumstantial evidence that the grievor's race was a factor in the Employer's actions.

The grievance was denied.

The Union filed two grievances alleging harassment and discrimination against a K9 handler by the Employer, including incidents following a medical leave and a dispute over the return of a work vehicle.

Following an unsuccessful mediation, the Arbitrator issued a case management decision setting a timeline for the exchange of particulars, production requests, and preliminary objections, and scheduled hearing dates for 2026.

The union requested an adjournment after the grievor failed to attend the scheduled video hearing.

The employer opposed the adjournment but acknowledged the Board's procedure of allowing the union an opportunity to determine the reason for non-attendance.

The arbitrator granted a conditional adjournment, requiring the grievor to provide a full and frank explanation for their absence, and reserved the employer's right to renew its motion to dismiss if the explanation is insufficient.

The Union filed a grievance alleging the Employer violated the collective agreement by failing to consult the Union's Occupational Stress Injuries Sub-committee before implementing a redesigned training program for correctional officer recruits.

The Arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that the collective agreement provisions regarding training and occupational stress injuries applied only to bargaining unit employees, not to pre-employment recruits.

The Arbitrator also rejected the Union's argument that the Employer was estopped from implementing the program without Union input, as there was no clear and unequivocal representation by the Employer that the Sub-committee's mandate extended to non-employees.

The parties engaged in case management discussions regarding two grievances involving allegations of harassment, discrimination, unfair exercise of management rights, health and safety violations, and unfair discipline.

On consent, the arbitrator issued case management directions setting deadlines for the Union to provide particulars and productions, and for the Employer to respond and advise of any preliminary issues.

During a grievance arbitration involving multiple grievances, one grievor failed to attend the first two hearing dates without explanation.

The employer moved to dismiss his grievances.

The arbitrator declined to dismiss the grievances immediately, finding it would be unfair without giving the grievor an opportunity to explain his absence.

The arbitrator ordered that the grievor has two weeks to provide an explanation to the union, failing which his grievances will be deemed abandoned or dismissed.

In an interim decision regarding a grievance challenging the termination of the grievor's employment for allegedly filing false health benefit claims, the employer sought production of medical records and electronic notes/calendar entries.

The union opposed the request for electronic notes, arguing it was late and irrelevant.

The arbitrator found that the requested materials were arguably relevant to the issues in dispute, including the grievor's mitigation efforts, medical condition, and whether the claimed health services were provided.

The arbitrator ordered the production of the requested medical records and electronic notes.

The parties convened for mediation which proved unsuccessful.

The arbitrator addressed case management issues, ruling that evidence regarding cause for discipline and appropriate penalty (including damages in lieu of reinstatement) would be heard together, while the calculation of any damages would be bifurcated.

The arbitrator also granted the Union's request to adjourn a scheduled hearing date because the grievor had recently commenced new employment and faced potential consequences for further absences during her probationary period.

The union sought an adjournment of a scheduled hearing date due to the grievor's medical issue, which the employer consented to.

On the reconvened date, the grievor failed to attend and could not be reached by the union.

The arbitrator ordered the grievor to provide an explanation for her absence prior to the next scheduled date and directed that any future medical absences must be substantiated by a medical certificate, warning that further unexplained absences could result in the grievance being dismissed.

The Employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the Complainant's grievance, arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction because the complaint was filed prematurely during the mandatory dispute resolution period.

The Employer also argued that ex parte communications between the Board's Registrar and the Complainant regarding filing timelines raised a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Board dismissed the motion, finding that the premature applications were effectively withdrawn and the final application was filed within the correct statutory window.

The Board further held that the Registrar's communications provided permissible legal information rather than legal advice, and did not prejudice the Employer or raise an apprehension of bias.

In a remedial claim arising from a prior decision, the Grievance Settlement Board ordered the employer to pay a meal allowance expense of $32.60 to each of the 46 grievors.

The decision was issued on a without prejudice and precedent basis and without reasons, pursuant to Article 22.16 of the Collective Agreement.

The parties engaged in settlement discussions which did not resolve the grievance.

The arbitrator scheduled the continuation of the hearing for February 29, 2024.

In the interim, the Union was ordered to provide the Employer with particulars regarding the details of the grievance and the remedies requested by January 19, 2024.

If the Union fails to do so, the Employer may bring a motion to dismiss the grievance.

The Union sought document production in a grievance arbitration.

On consent, the Arbitrator ordered the Employer to make its best efforts to provide all arguably relevant documents created between January 1, 2019, and January 25, 2022, relating to specific curriculum training, as well as emails and documents in the possession of a retired employee.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued a consent order regarding the disclosure of the grievor's medical documents.

The order established conditions for the release of the documents to the employer's counsel, including that they be maintained as confidential, not disclosed to non-participants, and used solely for the purposes of the grievance proceeding.

During a mediation-arbitration, the Employer requested particulars of harassment allegations made by the grievors against their manager.

The Union consented to providing particulars but requested until September 30, 2022, due to counsel's scheduled vacation, while the Employer sought them by August 14, 2022, to facilitate the manager's return to the workplace.

The Arbitrator ordered the Union to provide the particulars by September 16, 2022, balancing the need for timely information with counsel's vacation schedule.

The Union filed grievances regarding the eligibility of Correctional Officers for meal allowances while escorting inmates in the community.

The parties agreed to submit four questions to the Arbitrator to establish a framework for resolving the grievances.

The Arbitrator determined that day and night shifts should be treated the same, employees must purchase a meal and travel beyond 24 kilometres to be eligible, and employees are entitled to one meal allowance for an eight-hour shift and two meal allowances for a twelve-hour shift.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued an interim decision on case management and procedural issues regarding seven grievances alleging a failure to accommodate the grievor's disability.

The parties agreed to consolidate all seven grievances for hearing before the same arbitrator.

The employer agreed to produce relevant medical documentation and to accommodate the grievor during the hearing process with additional breaks and non-consecutive hearing days.

The end date for relevant evidence was set to February 16, 2022, when the grievor was assigned to the health reassignment process.

The union filed a grievance alleging the employer violated the collective agreement by failing to maintain a smoke-free environment in the workplace, exposing the grievor to second-hand smoke.

The parties agreed to settle the grievance and requested a consent order.

The arbitrator upheld the grievance, declaring that the employer breached the health and safety provisions of the collective agreement by failing to prevent exposure to residual smoke in the garage and fleet vehicles.

The Divisional Court remitted this matter to the Grievance Settlement Board to determine whether the employment function exclusion under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act applied to the grievor's mental stress injury.

The grievor suffered mental stress due to the employer's negligent delay in addressing a poisoned work environment after a co-worker assaulted him off-duty.

The arbitrator reviewed WSIAT jurisprudence and concluded that the employer's negligent conduct fell within the employment function exclusion, as it did not rise to the level of violence, threats, or egregious conduct.

Consequently, the grievor was not entitled to WSIA benefits, giving the Board jurisdiction to award monetary damages under the collective agreement.