Susan Munn

In a grievance arbitration alleging racial discrimination and a poisoned work environment, the Employer brought motions regarding evidentiary matters.

The Employer objected to the Union's proposed evidence from a co-worker intended to show the manager's propensity to ignore discrimination complaints.

The Employer also sought disclosure of the grievor's psychiatric records and police records.

The Grievance Settlement Board ruled the co-worker's evidence inadmissible as improper similar fact evidence.

The Board ordered disclosure of the psychiatric records, subject to strict confidentiality conditions, because the grievor had put her mental health at issue by claiming damages for pain and suffering.

Disclosure of the police records was granted on consent.

The employer raised a preliminary objection arguing that the Public Service Grievance Board lacked jurisdiction over the complaints because the complainant failed to give proper notice to his Deputy Minister as required by section 8 of Ontario Regulation 378/07.

The complainant conceded that he had not given the required notice but argued the objection should be dismissed due to the employer's failure to comply with a procedural undertaking.

The Board held that notice to the Deputy Minister is an essential precondition for jurisdiction.

As the required notice was not given, the complainant was not eligible to file the complaints, and they were dismissed.

The applicant, a former Support Clerk at the Ministry of Finance, alleged discrimination and harassment in employment on the basis of age, race, colour, and place of origin after her position was declared surplus during a restructuring.

She claimed co-workers mumbled around her desk and bullied her, and that her termination was motivated by discriminatory preferences.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding no evidence that the alleged harassment or the decision to declare her position surplus were related to any Code-protected grounds.

The respondents provided credible evidence that the restructuring was based on changing business needs and technology.

The Employer requested an adjournment of two scheduled hearing dates in November 2011 for a suspension and dismissal grievance, citing a significant scheduling conflict.

The Union opposed the request, noting the grievor had been suspended without pay since July 2009 and desired a prompt resolution.

The Grievance Settlement Board granted the adjournment subject to conditions, including the scheduling of six further hearing dates in January and February 2012 and the preservation of the Union's right to claim verifiable costs resulting from the adjournment.

In a grievance arbitration, the Grievance Settlement Board directed the union to provide the employer with full particulars of its claim and copies of all documents it intends to rely upon by February 3, 2012.

The Board noted that once the union complied, it could make appropriate requests for disclosure from the employer.

The hearing was scheduled to continue on April 3, 2012.

The employer brought a motion to dismiss the complainant's grievance after the complainant failed to attend a scheduled conference call hearing.

The complainant argued he was ill and unable to participate, but failed to provide adequate medical evidence despite previous warnings from the Board regarding the requirements for medical adjournments.

The Board found the complainant's explanations lacked credibility and granted the employer's motion, dismissing the complaint.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceeding seeking to re-activate his human rights application, which had been deferred pending the outcome of a workplace grievance-arbitration procedure.

The applicant argued that the grievance procedure was not being processed in a timely manner.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that dissatisfaction with the pace of the grievance process is not a sufficient reason to reverse the previous decision to defer the application until the conclusion of the grievance arbitration process.

The parties entered into a Memorandum of Settlement in 2009 to resolve a grievance.

The arbitrator remained seized of implementation issues.

The employer brought a motion regarding the interpretation of the phrase 'a vacant position' in the settlement.

Following a conference call, the arbitrator allowed the employer's motion, finding its argument persuasive.

The ruling was made without precedent or prejudice to the interpretation of the collective agreement.

The applicant filed a human rights application more than four years after the last alleged incident of discrimination, claiming the delay was due to depression.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide medical documentation substantiating his inability to file, and failed to explain how he was able to pursue other legal claims, obtain a professional designation, and work during the same period.

The application was dismissed as untimely because the delay was not incurred in good faith under section 34(2) of the Human Rights Code.

In a grievance arbitration under the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act, the Grievance Settlement Board ordered the Union to provide written particulars of the grievance.

The particulars must be provided at least 45 days prior to the next scheduled hearing date.

The Employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss union grievances regarding the calculation of absenteeism target incentives, arguing that a January 2010 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) precluded such challenges.

The MOA prevented the Union from challenging the Employer's 2009 data and attendance targets.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the motion, finding that while the MOA settled the attendance target percentage, it did not contain clear language waiving the Union's right to grieve the Employer's calculation of individual 'hours worked' for the purpose of applying the incentive payment.

The Union filed grievances alleging that the Employer violated the collective agreement by failing to pay absenteeism target incentives to fixed-term correctional officers.

The Employer brought a motion to dismiss the grievances on the basis that they did not disclose a prima facie case.

The Grievance Settlement Board granted the motion, finding that the clear language of the collective agreement restricted the incentive payments to 'regular' employees and explicitly excluded fixed-term employees.

The grievances were dismissed.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing on the basis that she was medically unable to attend due to a broken ankle.

The respondents opposed the request and sought dismissal of the application.

The Tribunal noted that the applicant's medical report indicated she needed to elevate her ankle above her heart frequently, making attendance difficult.

Despite concerns about the late submission of the medical report and the applicant's lack of communication with her representative, the Tribunal granted the adjournment, making the next hearing date peremptory on the applicant.

The Grievance Settlement Board held a conference call and directed that the scheduled arbitration be adjourned.

The Union was ordered to provide the Employer with particulars of the grievance, including the actions alleged to contravene the collective agreement and Human Rights Code, names of involved persons, dates, locations, and remedies sought, by May 13, 2011.

The union filed grievances alleging workplace harassment, failure to accommodate, and unjust suspension.

The Grievance Settlement Board previously ordered the union to provide detailed particulars of the allegations.

The union failed to meet the deadline and subsequently provided deficient particulars that lacked specific details of the alleged harassment.

The Board granted the union a final opportunity to deliver proper particulars and rescheduled the hearing to Toronto due to witness availability and the likelihood of procedural delays.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued a production order directing a doctor to produce clinical notes and records pertaining to the grievor's assessment and treatment following a motor vehicle accident.

The records are to be provided to union counsel, who will then provide arguably relevant copies to employer counsel, subject to strict confidentiality and use limitations.

The parties appeared before the Public Service Grievance Board to schedule the hearing of three grievances.

The parties agreed to consolidate the grievances for the purpose of dealing with the employer's preliminary motions.

The Board scheduled the preliminary motions for October 5, 2011, and set deadlines for the exchange of motion materials and the complainant's response.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing due to a broken ankle, and also requested to amend her application to add race, colour, and place of origin as grounds of discrimination.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment request, finding no explanation for why the applicant could not participate with appropriate accommodation.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend the application, noting that the essence of the evidence would remain the same and any prejudice could be addressed at the hearing.

The parties resolved several grievances, leaving four outstanding.

To ensure an expeditious hearing for the remaining grievances, the Grievance Settlement Board ordered the union to provide full particulars and identify further evidence and documentary disclosure needed.

The employer was ordered to provide the requested disclosure and identify additional facts it would rely upon.

In a grievance arbitration concerning the employer's alleged failure to accommodate a disability arising from workplace harassment, the Grievance Settlement Board issued a pre-hearing procedural order.

Following an unsuccessful mediation, the Vice-Chair ordered both parties to exchange full written particulars of their material facts and produce all relevant documents according to a set timetable to ensure an efficient hearing on the merits.