Thomas Ayers

The Union sought retroactive compensation for registered nurses who were allegedly required to be available during unpaid breaks.

Following a prior order to provide particulars, including a list of specific shifts where the grievors worked during unpaid breaks without compensation, the Union failed to provide the required details despite receiving the requested sign-in sheets from the Employer.

The Employer brought a motion to dismiss the grievance for failure to provide sufficient particulars.

The Arbitrator granted the motion and dismissed the grievance, noting that without specific details of the dates and times the grievors worked during unpaid breaks, there were insufficient particulars to determine any compensatory damages.

The union sought an adjournment sine die and an indefinite extension for the provision of documents and particulars regarding two grievances (failure to accommodate and termination for excessive absenteeism).

The employer brought a motion to dismiss the grievances due to the grievor's repeated failure to comply with Board orders to produce medical documents and her failure to attend hearings.

The arbitrator found that the grievor's medical notes were inadequate to justify the delays and that the employer was suffering significant prejudice due to the passage of time.

The arbitrator denied the union's request for an adjournment sine die and granted the employer's motion to dismiss the grievances.

The grievor, a correctional officer, was terminated following a severe assault on an inmate during his shift.

The employer alleged the grievor failed to properly perform his duties, including reading a book, using a cell phone in a secure area, failing to follow lockup procedures, and leaving his shift early.

The arbitrator found just cause for discipline regarding the cell phone, reading, and leaving early.

However, the arbitrator found the employer's written lockup and window covering policies were not consistently enforced and could not fully support discipline.

Considering mitigating factors, including the grievor's daughter's accident the previous day and his clean disciplinary record, the arbitrator concluded termination was excessive and substituted a one-year suspension.

The Grievor failed to provide particulars by the deadline directed in a previous Board decision and did not communicate with the Board.

As a result, the grievances were dismissed.

The union sought an adjournment of a scheduled videoconference hearing after the grievor failed to attend.

The employer agreed to the adjournment but requested conditions, specifically that the grievor provide a written explanation for her absence, failing which the grievances should be dismissed.

The arbitrator ordered the grievor to provide written particulars explaining her non-attendance and failure to give notice, after which the employer could renew its motion for dismissal.

In an interim decision regarding document production, the Union requested unredacted audio tapes of emergency calls and Bell call logs for administrative lines.

The Employer objected, arguing that producing the audio tapes would breach the Personal Health Information Protection Act (PHIPA) and be unduly burdensome, and that producing the call logs would require creating new records that do not currently exist.

The Arbitrator agreed with the Employer, finding that the requested productions would be unduly burdensome and, in the case of the audio tapes, would breach PHIPA.

The Union's requests for production were denied.

The union grieved that the grievor's manager engaged in bullying and harassment, creating a poisoned work environment for the grievor who had a health-related workplace accommodation.

During the hearing, the employer brought a non-suit motion, arguing the union failed to establish a prima facie case.

The arbitrator applied the established principles for non-suit motions and considered the grievor's unique accommodated work situation.

Finding that there was some credible evidence to support a prima facie case, the arbitrator dismissed the employer's non-suit motion and directed the hearing to continue.

The Association sought an adjournment of the scheduled hearing because the complainant failed to provide necessary particulars and submitted a medical note indicating an inability to attend any meetings going forward.

The parties agreed to an adjournment to allow the Association to clarify the complainant's circumstances and ability to participate.

The Employer reserved its right to take any position regarding the complainant's failure to comply with a previous order and failure to attend.

The Union filed two grievances alleging that the Employer failed to provide a workplace free from discrimination and harassment.

The first grievance arose after a co-trainer produced a racialized sex toy during a training session, which the Grievor reported.

Following her report, the Grievor was subjected to a barrage of meritless occurrence reports from the co-trainer's allies, which the Employer failed to adequately investigate or address, leading to a poisoned work environment.

The second grievance alleged that the Employer failed to honor an agreement to keep the Grievor separated from the co-trainer.

The Arbitrator allowed both grievances, finding that the Employer breached the collective agreement, the Occupational Health and Safety Act, and the Human Rights Code by failing to investigate the harassment and manage the workplace.

The Union referred two matters to arbitration on behalf of the grievor regarding disciplinary suspensions.

The Employer raised preliminary objections, arguing the referrals were untimely and that one of the matters (a letter) did not constitute a valid grievance.

The Arbitrator found that the Employer had waived its right to object to the untimeliness of the referrals by participating in the Joint Review Process and scheduling a hearing without raising the objection for several months.

However, the Arbitrator agreed with the Employer that the second matter (the letter) did not constitute a distinct grievance and that the mandatory grievance steps for it had been abandoned.

Finally, the Arbitrator ruled that the initial grievance, liberally construed, sufficiently raised the issue of the length of the suspensions.

The employer requested particulars of the grievance.

The association advised that the complainant was medically unable to provide the necessary information until September 8, 2020, but could not share the medical note without permission.

To preserve the scheduled hearing date, the employer agreed to a truncated timeframe.

The arbitrator directed the association to provide the particulars by September 17, 2020.

The union filed a grievance challenging the employer's practice of applying merit increases for fixed-term correctional officers on the first day of the month following their completion of the required threshold hours.

The employer argued that the phrase 'a minimum of' in article 31A.2.3 of the collective agreement gave it open-ended discretion to determine when to apply the salary progression.

The arbitrator rejected the employer's interpretation, finding that the mandatory language 'shall progress' requires the progression to be granted immediately upon the completion of the specified minimum number of hours.

The union's interpretation of the collective agreement was preferred.

At a video conference hearing, an attempt to mediate the dispute was unsuccessful.

The arbitrator determined that opening statements would not be useful due to factual issues and the employer's failure to provide full production of arguably relevant documentation.

The arbitrator ordered the employer to provide full disclosure of all arguably relevant material to the union by September 4, 2020, and scheduled a subsequent video conference to deal with pre-hearing motions.

The union grieved on behalf of the employee regarding his ability to perform the duties of his home position.

Following a hearing and review of medical documentation, including two Independent Medical Examinations, the arbitrator found that the grievor was unable to perform the duties of his home position from May 19, 2016, to July 20, 2020.

The arbitrator made no finding regarding the grievor's ability to perform duties after July 20, 2020, and remitted the issue of compensation back to the parties for resolution.

The complainants, senior managers in Aviation Services, filed grievances alleging that the employer improperly removed a salary allowance they had been receiving since 2014.

The employer argued that it was within its rights to issue a directive incorporating the allowances into base salaries under a new compensation plan.

The Public Service Grievance Board found that the salary allowance was a specific term and condition of the complainants' individual employment contracts.

The employer's unilateral removal of the allowance without consent constituted a breach of those terms and conditions.

The matter was remitted to the parties to determine an appropriate remedy.

The employer raised a preliminary objection arguing that the Public Service Grievance Board lacked jurisdiction to hear complaints from 13 senior managers regarding the removal of their salary allowances.

The employer contended the complaints were disguised classification grievances, which are excluded from the Board's jurisdiction under Regulation 378/07.

The Board dismissed the objection, finding that the complainants were disputing the removal of a specific aspect of their remuneration, not seeking to be assigned to a different classification.

The complaints will proceed to be heard on their merits.

The employer brought a motion to adjourn a scheduled hearing date in a termination grievance, citing difficulties in preparing a reply witness who was no longer an employee, exacerbated by Covid-19 restrictions.

The union opposed the motion, arguing the grievor had already faced significant delay.

The Arbitrator granted the adjournment, finding no pattern of delay by the employer, accepting the logistical difficulties, and noting that a replacement date was available shortly after the originally scheduled dates, resulting in minimal overall delay.

The grievor had been on long-term income protection (LTIP) since April 2015 and filed a grievance in December 2015.

After multiple extensions, the union filed a will-say statement signed by the grievor detailing allegations of employer misconduct.

Following conference calls and a review of the submissions, jurisprudence, and the will-say statement, the arbitrator dismissed the grievance.

In a bifurcated grievance arbitration concerning the duty to accommodate and alleged historic harassment, the Arbitrator issued procedural orders for the first phase of the hearing.

The Arbitrator imposed confidentiality conditions on the disclosure of the grievor's medical documents to the employer's counsel.

Additionally, both parties were ordered to produce particulars and documents relating to efforts to accommodate the grievor, including through telework and the Health Reassignment Program.

The employer was directed to present its evidence first.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued a procedural order regarding grievances filed by Ambulance Communication Officers at the Central Ambulance Communication Centre in Oshawa.

The Arbitrator ordered the Union to confirm the participation of three representative grievors or identify new ones, and established a timeline for the Union to identify the shifts and dates for which production is required.

Grievors who decline to participate will have their grievances dismissed.