89 total
Human rights applications deferred pending conclusion of concurrent grievance arbitration proceedings.
The applicant filed two human rights applications alleging discrimination, which overlapped with ongoing grievances filed by her union.
The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the second application because the issues were substantially the same as those before the Grievance Settlement Board (GSB).
Despite the applicant's concerns about delay, the Tribunal deferred the applications, noting that the GSB has the authority to address human rights issues and that deferral prevents concurrent proceedings and inconsistent decisions.
Judicial review dismissed; Tribunal reasonably found employer not vicariously liable for employee's unauthorized privacy breach.
The applicant sought judicial review of a Grievance Settlement Board decision dismissing a grievance that sought to hold the employer vicariously liable for a fellow employee's tort of intrusion upon seclusion.
The fellow employee had used the employer's equipment to access the grievor's Employment Insurance records.
The Divisional Court held that the applicable standard of review was reasonableness.
Applying the principles from Bazley v Curry, the court found the Tribunal's conclusion that the wrongful act was not sufficiently related to conduct authorized by the employer to be reasonable.
The application for judicial review was dismissed.
Grievances of deceased employee held in abeyance pending outcome of consolidated grievances of co-worker.
The parties agreed to consolidate the grievances of two Correctional Officers alleging violations of the collective agreement due to the Employer's Attendance Management Program.
Following the unexpected death of one of the grievors, the parties made submissions on how to proceed.
The Vice-Chair ordered that the deceased grievor's grievances be held in abeyance until the hearing for the other grievor is completed, at which point any outstanding issues could be addressed.
Request to reactivate deferred human rights application denied pending completion of ongoing grievance arbitration.
The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to reactivate her human rights application, which had been deferred pending the completion of a related union grievance process.
The applicant argued that she continued to experience ongoing problems in the workplace.
The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant provided no basis to exercise its discretion to reactivate the application before the grievance process concluded.
Motion to defer settlement grievance granted pending outcome of complainant's termination grievance to avoid mootness.
The employer brought a motion to defer the hearing of a settlement grievance until a separate termination grievance involving the same complainant was determined.
The employer argued that if the termination grievance was dismissed, the settlement grievance would become moot.
The union opposed the motion, arguing for expeditious resolution of labour disputes.
The Grievance Settlement Board granted the motion, finding that proceeding with the settlement grievance could result in unnecessary time and expense if the termination grievance was ultimately dismissed.
The matter was adjourned sine die pending the outcome of the termination grievance.
Tribunal orders production of redacted interview results but denies request for other employees' performance reviews.
The applicant in a human rights proceeding requested the production of various documents, including interview results and performance reviews, and requested that two of her witnesses be permitted to testify by telephone.
The Tribunal ordered the Ministry to produce the applicant's interview results and the redacted interview results of successful candidates, finding them arguably relevant to her reprisal allegations.
The request for performance reviews of other employees was denied as irrelevant.
The Tribunal deferred ruling on the telephone testimony request until the applicant provided the required medical reports and detailed witness statements.
Employer ordered to disclose all arguably relevant documents from a WDHP file.
At a hearing before the Grievance Settlement Board, the union sought disclosure of documents related to a Workplace Discrimination and Harassment Prevention (WDHP) report.
The Board issued an oral order, subsequently rendered in writing, requiring the employer to disclose all arguably relevant documents contained in the specified WDHP file.
Human rights application deferred pending the conclusion of a related union grievance arbitration.
The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination, a poisoned work environment, and failure to advance in her career.
Prior to filing the application, she filed a union grievance raising the same allegations.
The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application.
The respondent supported deferral, while the applicant opposed it.
The Tribunal found substantial overlap between the application and the grievance and deferred the application pending the conclusion of the grievance arbitration to avoid inconsistent decisions.
Grievance regarding performance evaluation method dismissed for lack of jurisdiction under O. Reg. 378/07.
The complainant filed a grievance alleging that the employer violated its performance management policy during his performance evaluation.
The employer argued that the Public Service Grievance Board lacked jurisdiction to hear the complaint.
The Board dismissed the complaint without a hearing, finding that section 4(2) of Ontario Regulation 378/07 explicitly prohibits complaints regarding the evaluation of a public servant's performance or the method of evaluating performance.
Grievance allowed in part; five-day suspension for cellphone use and insubordination reduced to one day.
The union grieved a five-day suspension imposed on the grievor for possessing and using a cellphone while on duty and failing to follow a manager's directive.
The parties agreed to a bottom-line decision.
The arbitrator found just cause for discipline but reduced the penalty to a one-day suspension.
Mediation ordered to proceed in Toronto as complainant failed to show unreasonable expense or inconvenience.
The complainant requested that a scheduled mediation be held in London, while the employer requested it be held in Toronto at the Board's offices in accordance with Practice Note #3.
The complainant argued it was unfair for the employer to insist on Toronto when employer representatives are reimbursed for travel expenses and he is not.
The Board found no basis to depart from its general rule that mediations are scheduled in Toronto unless it results in unreasonable expense and inconvenience, noting that the employer's reimbursement of its representatives is irrelevant.
The mediation was ordered to proceed in Toronto.
Retiring allowance under settlement agreement is not subject to EI or CPP deductions.
The parties sought an interpretation of Minutes of Settlement signed in February 2014.
The arbitrator determined that the amount referred to in Paragraph 1(b) of the settlement is a retiring allowance and therefore not subject to Employment Insurance (EI) or Canada Pension Plan (CPP) deductions.
The employer was ordered to pay the grievor the outstanding sum of $1,961.03.
Grievance dismissed; employer not required to use expired eligibility list to fill position.
The grievor claimed the Employer contravened the Collective Agreement by failing to fill a permanent Desk Auditor position posted on March 7, 2014, using an eligibility list created from a previous competition.
The Employer argued the eligibility list had expired by the time authorization was obtained to fill the position following the targeted direct assignment process.
The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding the Employer's position had considerable merit and noting that, given the grievor's ranking on the list, she would not have been selected even if the list had been used.
Employer breached settlement agreement by unilaterally changing accommodated work location without following agreed committee process.
The applicant filed an application alleging that the respondent breached a Minutes of Settlement regarding her workplace accommodation for scent sensitivity.
The settlement required the applicant to be assigned to a specific building during school hours, with any changes to be discussed by a committee.
The respondent unilaterally reassigned the applicant to a different unit after she briefly left her post, without engaging the committee or initiating formal discipline.
The Tribunal found that the respondent breached the settlement by failing to follow the agreed-upon process for modifying the accommodation.
The applicant was awarded $3,000 in monetary compensation for the breach.
Grievance allowed; claimant with fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue entitled to LTIP benefits for 'own occ' period.
The Union brought a grievance on behalf of a claimant who was denied long-term income protection (LTIP) benefits by the insurer.
The claimant suffered from fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue syndrome, conditions characterized by subjective symptoms such as pain and fatigue.
The employer argued there was insufficient objective medical evidence of impairment.
The arbitrator found the claimant credible, noting her exemplary employment history and the consistency of her self-reported symptoms with the clinical assessments of her treating physicians.
The arbitrator concluded the claimant was wholly and continuously disabled from performing the essential duties of her own occupation and granted LTIP benefits for the 'own occ' period.
The issue of entitlement for the 'any occ' period was remitted to the parties.
Interim order granted restricting access to grievors' medical files pending litigation of attendance management grievances.
The union filed grievances on behalf of two correctional officers alleging the employer violated the collective agreement through its application of the Attendance Support Management Program and improper use of confidential medical information.
Following unsuccessful mediation, the union requested an interim order regarding the storage of the grievors' medical files pending litigation.
The Grievance Settlement Board granted the interim order, directing the employer to store the medical files in a locked cabinet with restricted access, and ordered the parties to proceed with scheduling the litigation of the first grievance.
Job competition grievance dismissed; no breach of settlement confidentiality or material flaws in interview process found.
The union filed a grievance alleging the employer breached a Memorandum of Settlement during a job competition re-run.
The union claimed the employer breached the confidentiality clause by discussing interview arrangements in a public setting and that the interview process was flawed because the written test was not handwritten and the scoring was unfair.
The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding no breach of the confidentiality clause and concluding that the competition process was reasonably fair and consistent.
The arbitrator held that there were no flaws in the process severe enough to justify the extraordinary remedy of placing the grievor directly into the position.
Group grievance regarding inadequate training on new attendance program denied without written reasons.
The Union filed a group grievance alleging the Employer breached the collective agreement by failing to adequately train staff on a new Attendance Support and Management Program.
The parties referred the grievance to mediation/arbitration and requested a decision without precedent, prejudice, or written reasons.
The arbitrator found no breach of the collective agreement and denied the grievance.
Grievance allowed; employer held liable for failing to investigate and address racial harassment in the workplace.
The grievor, a visible minority, alleged she was subjected to racial discrimination, harassment, and assault by her coworkers.
She reported these incidents to her manager and director, but the employer failed to conduct a meaningful investigation or take reasonable steps to address the poisoned work environment.
As a result of the workplace conflict, the grievor developed major depressive disorder and required a medical leave of absence.
The Grievance Settlement Board allowed the grievance, finding that the employer was willfully blind to the serious problems in the office and breached its duty to provide a safe and healthy work environment free from discrimination.
Employer breached duty to accommodate and harassed employee by insensitively communicating schedule changes affecting his accommodation.
The grievor, a Correctional Officer with mental health issues, was accommodated with a specific schedule and limited inmate contact.
A manager, unaware of the specifics of the grievor's mental health needs, held a meeting to announce schedule changes and made comments suggesting the accommodation was short-term and that the grievor could be replaced.
The grievor's mental health subsequently deteriorated.
The Grievance Settlement Board found that the Employer discriminated against the grievor and failed in its duty to accommodate by not considering his mental health issues when communicating the changes.
The Board also found that certain comments made by the manager constituted harassment under the Human Rights Code.
The grievance was allowed and the issue of remedy was remitted to the parties.
