89 total
Employer breached settlement agreement by making unauthorized inquiry to grievor's doctor; mental distress damages awarded.
The Union filed a grievance alleging the Employer breached a prior Memorandum of Settlement regarding the Grievor's return to work.
The arbitrator found that an unknown person from the Provincial Government made an unauthorized phone call to the Grievor's doctor's office, improperly obtaining confidential medical appointment information.
This privacy breach caused the doctor to delay issuing a return-to-work certificate, resulting in the Grievor losing one week's wages.
The arbitrator held this was a clear breach of the Employer's duty to carry out the settlement in good faith.
The grievance was allowed, and the Grievor was awarded compensation for the lost week's wages plus $2,500 in damages for mental distress.
Employer breached settlement agreement by making unauthorized call to grievor's doctor; mental distress damages awarded.
The Union filed a grievance alleging that the Employer breached a Memorandum of Settlement when an unauthorized individual from the Provincial Government called the Grievor's doctor to inquire about his appointments.
The Grievance Settlement Board found that the call was made by someone in the Provincial Government, likely the Ministry of Labour, without the Grievor's consent.
This breach of privacy caused the Grievor's doctor to delay issuing a return-to-work certificate, resulting in one week of lost wages.
The Board held that the Employer breached its duty to carry out the settlement in good faith and awarded the Grievor compensation for the lost wages plus $2,500 in damages for mental distress.
Grievance allowed; surplus employee demonstrated minimum competence to bump junior employee after familiarization period.
The grievor's position was declared surplus and she sought to exercise her displacement rights to bump a more junior employee from the position of Secretary to the Director.
The employer denied the displacement, arguing the grievor lacked demonstrated experience in several core components of the job, such as drafting executive letters and using specific correspondence management software.
The Grievance Settlement Board allowed the grievance, finding that the employer applied an overly stringent standard by requiring the grievor to have performed the exact tasks previously, rather than assessing whether she had the minimum competence to perform the core components after a period of familiarization.
The Board ordered the grievor placed in the position and made whole.
Employer's preliminary motion to dismiss grievance regarding abandonment of position denied; viva voce evidence required.
The Employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the grievance, arguing that the Union failed to raise a prima facie defence to the declaration that the grievor abandoned her position under section 42 of the Public Service of Ontario Act, 2006.
The Employer sought to have the motion decided solely on the Union's statement of particulars without hearing viva voce evidence.
The Vice-Chair denied the motion, finding that the grievance also encompassed complaints of harassment and failure to accommodate, and that evidence was necessary to fairly and properly resolve the intertwined issues.
Grievance dismissed; discharge upheld for youth services officer who provided pornography to youths in custody.
The grievor, a Youth Services Officer at a secure custody facility, was discharged for misusing Ministry IT resources by accessing and printing inappropriate sexual images and providing them to young persons in custody, and for allowing young persons to view pornographic videos on a Ministry computer.
The union grieved the discharge, arguing the penalty was excessive compared to other officers who received lesser discipline for similar conduct.
The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding the grievor's misconduct was more severe and compounded by his lack of candour and failure to take responsibility during the investigation.
Board formalized parties' agreement to have human rights issues determined within the grievance arbitration.
The grievors filed multiple grievances alleging denial of sick leave, harassment, and discriminatory treatment.
They also filed complaints with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.
Following unsuccessful mediation, the parties agreed to have the Grievance Settlement Board determine the outstanding human rights issues.
The Board issued this decision to formalize the agreement, directed the union to provide full particulars of the human rights issues, and noted that the Human Rights Tribunal had deferred its proceedings.
Claim dismissed as statute‑barred, abusive relitigation, and outside court jurisdiction.
The defendant brought a motion to dismiss a statement of claim arising from a long-running workplace dispute involving a former unionized public employee and a settlement of employment grievances.
The plaintiff alleged fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation regarding pension buy-back rights and additional promises allegedly made during settlement negotiations.
The court found the claim was brought well outside the applicable limitation period under the Limitations Act and that the discoverability rule did not apply because the plaintiff had knowledge of the alleged wrongdoing many years earlier.
The pleadings also failed to disclose the necessary elements of negligent or fraudulent misrepresentation and amounted to an attempt to relitigate issues already decided by administrative tribunals and multiple courts.
The court further held that the essential character of the dispute arose from a collective agreement and therefore fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the labour arbitration regime rather than the court.
Employer's preliminary motion to dismiss grievances for lack of a prima facie case denied.
The Union filed grievances alleging improper surplussing of employees at the Rideau Regional Centre and Huronia Regional Centre.
The Employer raised a preliminary objection, arguing the grievances should be summarily dismissed for failing to establish a prima facie case of a collective agreement violation.
The Union argued the Employer violated various provisions by failing to provide accurate information about options, including leaves of absence to bridge to an unreduced pension under the Surplus Factor 80 program, and by treating the grievors differently from other employees.
The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the Employer's motion, finding that the grievances raised substantive issues of contract interpretation and bad faith that fell within its jurisdiction to determine on the merits.
Grievor ordered to produce arguably relevant medical records subject to strict confidentiality and use conditions.
The employer sought production of the grievor's medical records in relation to an accommodation request and the alleged effect of the employer's actions on the grievor's mental health.
The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the union and the grievor to produce arguably relevant clinical notes and records from specified health practitioners.
The Board imposed conditions limiting the review and use of the documents to the current proceedings and authorized review by specific employer representatives and medical experts.
Production of grievor's medical records ordered, limited to documents relevant to accommodation and mental health.
The Employer sought an order for the production of the grievor's clinical notes and medical records.
The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the Union and the grievor to produce the records of specified doctors and other health practitioners, limited to documents arguably relevant to the grievor's accommodation request and the effect of the Employer's actions on his mental health.
The Board also imposed conditions on who could review the documents and restricted their use solely to these proceedings.
Employer violated collective agreement by failing to provide required notice to union before filling temporary vacancy.
The Union filed a grievance alleging the Employer violated the collective agreement when filling a temporary vacancy.
The parties engaged in a mediation-arbitration process.
The arbitrator found that the Employer placed an applicant in a temporary vacancy but failed to notify the Local Union President ten working days prior to filling the vacancy, as required by Article 6.1.2 of the collective agreement.
A declaration was issued that the Employer violated the notice requirement.
Employer ordered to pay $13,000 and cease payroll deductions for specified absences as remedy.
Following a previous decision, the Grievance Settlement Board ordered the employer to pay the grievor $13,000 less mandatory deductions.
The employer was also ordered to cease any payroll deductions for the grievor's absences between March 18, 2009, and their last day of work at the Toronto East Detention Centre.
Consent order issued directing the Employer to produce documents subject to confidentiality conditions.
In four individual grievances challenging discipline issued to correctional officers, the Grievance Settlement Board issued a consent order directing the Employer to produce all documents it intends to rely upon.
The Board also ordered the Employer to provide a list of any further arguably relevant documents, subject to conditions restricting their use, distribution, and requiring their return at the conclusion of the litigation.
Employer's non-suit motion dismissed as union adduced sufficient evidence of racial discrimination to require an answer.
The union filed a grievance alleging the grievor was subjected to racial discrimination by co-workers and that management failed to take action.
After the union closed its case, the employer brought a motion for non-suit.
The Grievance Settlement Board applied the standard for non-suit motions, which requires determining whether the union adduced sufficient evidence to support its claim if its witnesses are believed.
The Board found the union's evidence was sufficient to require an answer from the employer and dismissed the non-suit motion.
Union ordered to produce grievor's psychiatric records for accommodation grievance, subject to confidentiality conditions.
The Employer requested the production of the grievor's medical records in relation to a grievance alleging a failure to accommodate a disability.
The Grievance Settlement Board found the records arguably relevant and ordered the Union to produce the grievor's psychiatric records and family physician's medical records pertaining to his psychiatric condition, subject to strict confidentiality conditions.
Non-suit motion granted; union failed to prove province-wide practice of assigning triage work to bargaining unit.
The union grieved that the employer violated the collective agreement by allowing managers to perform bargaining unit work, specifically receiving and investigating work refusals in correctional facilities.
At the conclusion of the union's case, the employer moved for a non-suit.
The Grievance Settlement Board granted the non-suit motion, finding that the union failed to adduce sufficient evidence to establish its claim of a uniform province-wide practice of assigning such triage work to bargaining unit personnel.
Human rights application deferred pending resolution of concurrent workplace grievance on same facts.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and harassment based on disability regarding the respondent's attendance management practices.
A concurrent workplace grievance based on the same facts had been filed by the applicant's union and referred to arbitration.
The Tribunal deferred the application pending the conclusion of the grievance proceedings, noting that grievance arbitrators have the power and responsibility to enforce human rights obligations.
Grievance alleging age and sex discrimination in overtime assignments dismissed for failing to establish a prima facie case.
The union filed a grievance alleging that the grievor was subjected to discrimination on the basis of age and sex, claiming he was scheduled for fewer overtime hours than younger female co-workers.
The employer argued that the union failed to make out a prima facie case based on the particulars provided.
The Grievance Settlement Board found that the data provided by the union did not support the allegations of discrimination, noting that the grievor was out of the relevant position for large portions of the time and that another male employee of similar age received high overtime hours.
The grievance was dismissed.
Grievance dismissed; absenteeism incentive payment based on actual hours worked, excluding paid leaves.
The Union filed a grievance alleging the Employer violated Appendix COR-7 of the collective agreement by excluding time spent on approved leaves of absence and acting assignments from the calculation of 'hours worked' for the Absenteeism Target Incentive.
The Union argued the lump sum payment was effectively a retroactive wage increase and that excluding leave time penalized employees and violated the Employment Standards Act and Human Rights Code.
The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding the clear language of the agreement provided a lump sum payment based on actual 'hours worked' to reward attendance, not a wage increase, and that prorating a work-driven benefit based on actual attendance did not constitute a reprisal or discrimination.
Grievance dismissed; employer did not breach settlement by denying redeployment to position requiring immediate specialized legislative knowledge.
The union alleged the employer breached a Memorandum of Settlement by failing to award a surplussed employee a vacant Group Leader position during a redeployment search.
The union argued the employer failed to consider an updated employee portfolio and wrongly concluded the employee lacked the necessary qualifications.
The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding the employer was not required to consider the late portfolio under the settlement terms.
Furthermore, the Board held the Group Leader position legitimately required a virtually-fully-functional knowledge of the Highway Traffic Act without a familiarization period, which the employee did not possess.
