Suneel Bahal

The Union filed grievances claiming the Employer violated the collective agreement regarding meal allowance and overtime provisions for employees at Maplehurst Correctional Centre.

The parties agreed to proceed on the single issue of whether employees assigned to escort duty who work through their unpaid meal break are entitled to straight time or overtime pay.

The Arbitrator found that employees are entitled to the overtime rate for the normally unpaid meal break time, in addition to the one-hour compensation for the missed meal break, as any time worked over scheduled hours is overtime.

The grievances were granted and the Employer was directed to pay the applicable overtime rate.

The Union sought to retract its withdrawal of a grievance concerning escort training for Correctional Officers.

The local Union President had signed a withdrawal form after being informed by the Employer that training was up to date, but quickly realized he lacked full knowledge of the grievance's scope and historical context.

The Employer argued the withdrawal was binding.

The Arbitrator held that while withdrawn grievances generally cannot be revived, an exception exists for inadvertence or mistake.

Finding that the local President made an inadvertent error and immediately communicated it without causing detriment to the Employer, the Arbitrator rescinded the withdrawal and relisted the matter for hearing.

The arbitrator reviewed the parties' compliance with directions set out in a previous order dated September 25, 2020.

The employer confirmed payments related to Walkerton and Windsor were effected or in process, and advised that requested documents dating back 13 to 17 years were no longer available.

The union complied with directions regarding payment dates.

The arbitrator noted the union made every reasonable effort to secure information for allocating settlement funds and must now proceed with the limited information available.

The arbitrator remained seized of any implementation difficulties.

The Union filed a group grievance alleging that the Employer violated employees' privacy rights by subjecting them to searches after a cash bag containing a large sum of money went missing from the office.

The Arbitrator issued case management directions to govern the arbitration process for the groups of grievors alleging improper physical or personal possession searches.

The directions established timelines for particulars, production, and the exchange of witness declarations, and set the parameters for a one-day consultation hearing.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued a consent order directing the employer to make payments owing under the parties' agreements in respect of the Windsor and Walkerton Jails.

The employer was also directed to advise the union regarding the existence and production of quarterly reports for several other correctional institutions, and to provide information on unpaid or uncashed payments for specific detention centres.

The union reserved the right to seek general damages in the event of non-compliance.

In a grievance arbitration concerning multiple suspensions and a discharge of a Bailiff, the Union brought a non-suit motion after the Employer presented its evidence over forty hearing days.

The Arbitrator reviewed the legal principles applicable to non-suit motions, noting that the standard is whether there is some credible evidence to support a prima facie case, not proof on a balance of probabilities.

Finding that the Employer's evidence met this minimum threshold, the Arbitrator dismissed the Union's non-suit motion.

The Union brought a motion alleging that the Employer's failure to preserve data on three bailiff computers, which were wiped during a routine refresh, constituted an abuse of process and prevented the grievor from obtaining a fair hearing.

The Union sought to have the grievor's four discipline grievances allowed as a remedy.

The Arbitrator dismissed the motion, finding that the data loss was inadvertent and not the result of deliberate or negligent conduct by the Employer.

Furthermore, given the extensive oral and documentary evidence already presented, the Arbitrator concluded that the grievor's right to a fair hearing had not been compromised.

The parties submitted a specific question regarding the assignment of escort duty for inmates admitted to a hospital.

The employer argued it had a management right to assign escort duty to correctional officers from any institution, particularly one closer to the hospital, for efficiency.

The union argued that escort duty, which often involves overtime, must be assigned to officers from the institution responsible for the inmate's care, custody, and control, in accordance with local overtime protocols.

The arbitrator determined that assigning work pertaining to the care of an institution's inmates to officers of a different institution is inconsistent with the collective agreement's scheme and local overtime protocols.

The arbitrator ruled that the employer is required to assign the escort function to officers from the institution where the inmate is housed.

The union sought a procedural order directing the employer to complete several outstanding tasks related to the assignment of escort duties in correctional institutions.

The parties had previously agreed on procedural and substantive steps to resolve the ongoing litigation.

The arbitrator directed the employer to seek out information regarding outstanding payments, make specific payments for Walkerton, locate quarterly reports for several institutions, and advise the union regarding a specific list, all within 60 days.

In a grievance arbitration concerning alleged breaches of a community escort agreement, the Grievance Settlement Board ordered the Union to provide particulars of the grievances, including specific dates and shifts at issue, along with relevant document production within 90 days.

The Employer was ordered to provide its responses within 90 days of receiving the Union's particulars and production.

The parties sought a consent order from the Grievance Settlement Board regarding the assignment of community escorts for incarcerated offenders.

The Arbitrator issued a consent order clarifying that the Employer must utilize Classified Correctional Officers before Fixed-Term officers, cannot bypass protocol to assign the same staff continuously, cannot hire Police Services when Correctional Staff are available, and must assign duties to officers with the lowest number of community escort hours, subject to operational needs.

The Union brought a motion seeking an order to allow a forensic expert to access the Employer's electronically stored information (ESI).

The Union sought to forensically examine 65 documents and investigate the wiping of data from three computers during a scheduled refresh.

The Employer opposed the motion, arguing the Grievance Settlement Board lacked jurisdiction to grant such an order and that the request was a fishing expedition.

The Arbitrator dismissed the motion, applying the principle of proportionality.

The Arbitrator found that the Union's request was based on speculation and that the significant cost and delay of a forensic study outweighed any likely probative value.

In a grievance arbitration, the Employer sought an order requiring the Union to provide full and sufficient particulars.

The Arbitrator granted the request, ordering the Union to provide detailed particulars for all individuals wishing to pursue their grievance by February 29, 2020.

The union brought a motion for the production of various documents related to a computer refresh and data wiping that occurred in September 2017, in the context of a discipline grievance.

The arbitrator reviewed the union's list of requested items, which included keypress data, emails, occurrence report properties, phone records, and wipe out certificates.

The arbitrator granted the requests for emails between specific individuals regarding the refresh, documents setting out when the computers arrived for disposal, and the wipe out certificates, finding them arguably relevant.

The remaining requests were denied on the basis that they would not provide arguably relevant information.

In an ongoing discipline grievance arbitration, the Union sought the production of various documents.

The Arbitrator reviewed the status of the production requests, noting which documents the Employer claimed never existed, could not be located, or were withdrawn by the Union.

The Arbitrator denied the Union's renewed request for a control logbook to establish the timing of a Code Blue, finding it to be a collateral matter not arguably relevant to the central issues.

The Employer was directed to produce two other specific logbook entries if they were in its possession.

The Employer raised a preliminary objection regarding a group complaint filed before the Public Service Grievance Board, arguing that three of the four named complainants had not filed a required notice of proposal under section 8 of O. Reg. 378/07.

The Board directed the individuals to provide evidence of their notices.

After receiving no valid notices of proposal from the three individuals, the Board found that filing a notice is an essential pre-condition for jurisdiction.

Consequently, the Board removed the three individuals as named parties to the complaint, leaving only the original complainant.

During an arbitration hearing for discipline grievances, an issue arose regarding the recall of three Employer witnesses following the late production of documents.

The Employer requested that the Union decide immediately whether it wanted to recall the witnesses, while the Union preferred to wait until the Employer closed its case in chief.

The Arbitrator directed the Union to advise the Employer by a specific date whether it wanted the witnesses recalled, finding that delaying the decision was inconsistent with the purpose of the recall agreement and unduly restricted the Employer's right to organize its case.

During the hearing of discipline grievances, a dispute arose regarding the union's intention to enter certain documents during cross-examination.

The hearing was adjourned to allow the employer to address the issues.

The arbitrator issued a decision reminding both parties of previous directions regarding the timely production of documents upon which they intend to rely, emphasizing the need to avoid unnecessary delay.

During the cross-examination of a manager in a discipline grievance proceeding, the union requested the production of various documents, including occurrence reports, conversation notes, and phone records.

The employer opposed many of the requests, arguing they were late and overly broad.

The arbitrator directed the production of documents that were arguably relevant to the central issues in dispute, such as specific conversation notes and occurrence reports, but denied requests for phone records and logbooks that pertained to collateral issues.

During the hearing of discipline grievances, the Union made approximately 25 disclosure requests relating to the cross-examination of an Employer witness.

The Arbitrator ruled on the requests, denying several as irrelevant or constituting a fishing expedition, such as requests for draft disciplinary letters and phone records sought merely to test credibility on collateral matters.

The Arbitrator ordered the production of the witness's investigative training records and certain written requests for occurrence reports, if they existed.