83 total
Grievance allowed; Employer lacked just cause to terminate the Grievor.
The Grievance Settlement Board found that the Employer did not have just cause to terminate the Grievor.
The parties agreed on the amount of lost wages, which the Employer was ordered to pay.
The Arbitrator remained seized of any disputes regarding additional compensation or issues arising from reinstatement, and ordered the Union and Grievor to make a request for production of documents related to the authorship of investigation reports.
Grievance Settlement Board awards $35,000 in general damages for employer's failure to address workplace harassment.
The Union sought damages following a merits decision that found the Employer breached the collective agreement and the Human Rights Code by failing to investigate a poisoned work environment and harassment involving racial and sexual discrimination.
The Employer argued the Grievance Settlement Board lacked jurisdiction to award mental distress damages, asserting such claims were barred by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act.
The Arbitrator rejected this argument, finding the claims were for human rights and collective agreement breaches, not WSIA-compensable injuries.
The Arbitrator awarded the grievor $35,000 in general damages for the Employer's systemic failure to maintain a safe and respectful workplace.
Case management directions issued setting strict time limits and document production rules for grievance arbitration.
The arbitrator issued case management directions for the hearing of four grievances referred under the Central Collective Agreement.
The directions established timelines for the exchange of document books and authorities, limited the hearing to one day, and set strict time limits for the examination and cross-examination of the two witnesses regarding a specific conversation.
Employer ordered to pay $5,000 for harassing and discriminating against an accommodated employee working remotely.
The Union grieved that the Grievor's Manager engaged in a course of conduct including micromanaging, bullying, harassment, and exclusion, resulting in discrimination on the basis of disability.
The Grievor had a workplace accommodation requiring her to work at an alternative location, physically isolated from her colleagues.
The Arbitrator found that the Manager applied a different standard to the Grievor based on her accommodation, subjected her to adverse treatment, and failed to include her in workplace events.
The Employer was found to have violated Article 3 of the Collective Agreement and was ordered to pay $5,000 in general damages for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.
Grievance alleging employer breached a memorandum of settlement by holding an expectations meeting dismissed.
The union alleged that the employer breached a Memorandum of Settlement by holding a meeting with the grievor regarding a matter that was the subject of a fact-finding meeting prior to the settlement.
The settlement resolved all outstanding disputes to date.
The arbitrator found no breach of the settlement, noting that the post-settlement meeting was used to advise the grievor of expectations and did not result in discipline.
The grievance was dismissed.
Grievances regarding working conditions dismissed without merit determination due to intervening staffing changes.
The Union filed several grievances regarding working conditions at the Oshawa Central Ambulance Communication Centre.
During the intervening period, staffing changes occurred, including the hiring of additional staff.
The arbitrator determined that due to these material changes, there was no labour relations purpose to hearing the grievances of the representative grievor.
The grievances were dismissed without a decision on their merits.
Interim order issued directing the exchange of particulars and productions in a workplace harassment grievance.
In a grievance arbitration concerning allegations of workplace harassment and bullying, the arbitrator found that the issues had not yet been properly crystallized.
The arbitrator issued an interim order directing the union to provide particulars of the allegations, a list of requested productions, and the nature of the remedies sought by April 1, 2022.
The employer was ordered to provide its reply, productions, and any preliminary objections by April 29, 2022, with the hearing to be scheduled for continuation in mid-2022.
Union's attempt to expand grievance to include post-freeze salary progression claims denied for lack of jurisdiction.
The union sought to expand its grievances regarding salary progression for fixed term employees to include claims about how salary progression resumed after a freeze ended.
The employer objected to the Board's jurisdiction, arguing it was an undue expansion of the original grievances.
The arbitrator upheld the employer's objection, finding that the post-freeze issue was not raised in the original grievances or during the hearing, and could not be considered a remedial claim flowing from the Board's earlier decisions.
The union's new particulars were struck.
Grievance allowed; employer erred in declaring job abandonment instead of placing employee on unpaid leave.
The Association grieved the Employer's decision to declare a long-service employee to have abandoned her position after she failed to provide updated medical information to substantiate her ongoing absence.
The arbitrator found that, given the unique facts including the nature of the disability and the medical information already provided, the Employer should have placed the employee on an approved unpaid leave of absence rather than declaring job abandonment.
The grievance was allowed, and the employee was reinstated to an unpaid leave of absence until her intended retirement date.
Judicial review dismissed; employers are not statutorily required to negotiate pay equity maintenance with unions.
The applicant union sought judicial review of a Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal decision which found that the respondent employers were not statutorily obligated to negotiate the maintenance of pay equity plans following a health services integration.
The union argued that the Pay Equity Act required mandatory bargaining for pay equity maintenance and that the Tribunal's interpretation violated the freedom of association under section 2(d) of the Charter.
The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Tribunal reasonably interpreted the Act as placing the responsibility for maintaining pay equity solely on the employer, with the union's role limited to monitoring and filing complaints.
The Court also found that the Tribunal's decision did not disproportionately limit Charter protections.
Consent procedural order issued for hearing 11 related grievances sequentially.
The parties agreed to a procedural framework for hearing 11 related grievances before the Grievance Settlement Board.
The arbitrator issued a consent order directing that the grievances be heard separately in chronological order, with evidence from the first grievance applying to subsequent ones, and set timelines for particulars and document production.
Arbitrator issues procedural directions setting a schedule for written submissions in a job competition grievance.
The matter involves a contested job competition for the position of Trial Coordinator.
The union and the employer agreed to resolve the matter by written submissions and proposed a schedule.
The incumbent third party did not object to the proposed schedule.
The arbitrator issued directions setting out the schedule for the parties to provide their written submissions, including submissions on the employer's preliminary motion to dismiss one of the grievances.
Untimely grievances dismissed; insufficient particulars struck; employer ordered to disclose transfer documents.
The Employer brought a motion to dismiss two of three grievances filed by the Union on behalf of the Grievor for being untimely, and a motion to strike certain particulars from the Union's Statement of Particulars for insufficiency or lack of relevance.
The Union brought a motion for an order directing the Employer to disclose documents related to the Grievor's transfers.
The Arbitrator dismissed the two grievances as they were filed well beyond the 30-day time limit without sufficient explanation to warrant an extension.
The Arbitrator struck several paragraphs from the Statement of Particulars for failing to provide sufficient detail or for lacking arguable relevance to the remaining grievance, while allowing others to remain.
Finally, the Arbitrator ordered the Employer to disclose the requested transfer documents, finding them arguably relevant to the Grievor's claims of a toxic work environment and targeted discipline.
Complaint dismissed for abandonment after complainant failed to attend hearing or respond to Board direction.
The complainant failed to attend a scheduled mediation and hearing regarding the employer's preliminary objection to the Board's jurisdiction.
The Board issued a direction requiring the complainant to provide an explanation for her non-attendance by a specified deadline, warning that failure to respond would result in dismissal.
The complainant did not respond.
The Board deemed the complaint abandoned and dismissed it.
Complainant ordered to provide reasons for failing to attend hearing, under threat of dismissal.
The complainant failed to attend a scheduled mediation/hearing by videoconference and provided no notice to the Board, though she had emailed employer counsel.
The Board adjourned the hearing and ordered the complainant to provide reasons for her non-attendance and lack of notice by a specified date.
The Board directed that if the complainant fails to respond within the time allowed, her complaint will be dismissed.
Arbitrator orders partial production of documents arguably relevant to particularized allegations of unjust discipline.
In a grievance arbitration concerning unjust discipline and harassment, the Union requested the production of specific documents and records.
The Employer resisted, arguing the requests were a 'fishing expedition' and not arguably relevant.
The Arbitrator applied the arguable relevance test, noting that production may be premature if issues are not clearly defined by particularized allegations.
The Arbitrator ordered the production of certain documents related to the discipline imposed on the grievor and the treatment of a specific youth person, but denied or narrowed other requests that were overbroad or lacked a sufficient probative nexus to the particularized allegations.
Motion to strike particulars partially granted; Union ordered to provide further and better particulars.
The Employer brought a motion to strike numerous elements of the Union's Statement of Particulars regarding grievances alleging discrimination, harassment, and unjust discipline of a Youth Services Officer.
The Employer argued the particulars were insufficient, irrelevant, or failed to disclose a prima facie breach of the Collective Agreement.
The Arbitrator struck two paragraphs for irrelevance and found several others insufficiently particularized, but declined to strike them entirely, instead ordering the Union to provide further and better particulars to enable the Employer to know the case it has to meet.
Production of grievor's medical records ordered subject to strict confidentiality and redaction protocols.
In a grievance arbitration, the employer requested production of the complainant's medical documentation.
The arbitrator ordered the union to produce the relevant medical records from the complainant's treating physician for a specified period.
The order included strict protocols for redaction of irrelevant information, secure electronic transmission, limited disclosure to specific employer representatives for instruction purposes only, and restrictions on the use and retention of the records during and after the proceedings.
Union estopped from challenging long-standing employer practice regarding timing of merit increases due to constructive knowledge.
The employer brought a motion arguing that the union was estopped from asserting its rights under article 31A.2.3 of the collective agreement, which governed when fixed-term employees in corrections progress through the salary grid.
The employer had a long-standing practice since 1992 of applying merit increases on the first day of the month following the completion of the required hours, rather than immediately upon completion.
The arbitrator found that the employer's policy was clear and consistently applied, and that the union had constructive knowledge of the practice.
The arbitrator concluded that all elements of estoppel were established, including detrimental reliance in the form of a lost opportunity to bargain, and held that the union was estopped from asserting its strict rights under the collective agreement.
Preliminary objection on timeliness granted; objection on lack of prima facie case dismissed.
The Employer raised preliminary objections to two grievances filed by the Association on behalf of the Complainant.
The first objection sought to dismiss allegations regarding a delay in providing Long Term Income Protection (LTIP) forms due to untimeliness.
The Arbitrator found no reasonable grounds to extend the timelines under section 48(16) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, and noted the Employer would be substantially prejudiced by the delay.
The second objection sought to dismiss allegations of a breach of the right to representation for failing to disclose a prima facie case.
The Arbitrator dismissed this objection, finding the Association articulated a legal theory that could reasonably support a violation of the collective agreement.
