83 total
Board orders production of redacted candidate resumes and joins incumbent in job competition grievance.
In a dispute over a job competition for a Trial Coordinator position, the Grievance Settlement Board issued procedural directions following an unsuccessful mediation.
The Board joined the successful incumbent as an interested third party and ordered the Employer to produce the redacted applications and resumes of the screened-in candidates and the grievors.
The Board also set parameters for the upcoming expedited hearing, including a schedule for raising preliminary motions and evidentiary issues.
Arbitrator finds prima facie that incumbent grievors were improperly screened out of job competition interviews.
The union grieved the employer's decision to screen out three incumbent employees from an interview for a Trial Coordinator position.
The arbitrator conducted a prima facie review of the screening documentation and scoring.
The arbitrator found that the grievors were improperly excluded from the interview process, as their scores on two criteria should have been higher when compared to the successful candidates.
The arbitrator directed that the interviews should be re-done, subject to further submissions from the parties and the incumbent at the next hearing date.
Arbitrator issued procedural orders requiring the employer to provide particulars and witness information.
A teleconference hearing was held to determine the process for outstanding issues in a group grievance.
The arbitrator ordered the employer to provide its position and preliminary particulars regarding claims for 'category A' employees by September 6, 2019.
Additionally, if the employer intends to raise an estoppel argument, it must provide particulars and identify its first witnesses by September 11, 2019.
The hearing was scheduled to continue on September 27, 2019.
Six-month adjournment granted to allow medically unfit grievor to provide will say statement.
The union requested a six-month adjournment to provide a will say statement detailing the employer's alleged misconduct, as the grievor was medically unable to participate.
The employer requested the grievance be dismissed due to the failure to meet the extended deadline for the will say statement.
The arbitrator granted the union a six-month extension to provide the required statement, noting that if the union failed to do so, the employer could renew its request for dismissal.
Employer ordered to produce sign-in sheets to support union's claim for retroactive compensation.
The union sought an order for the production of sign-in sheets for the grievors for a one-year period to support a claim for retroactive compensation for unpaid breaks.
The employer refused, arguing the request was a fishing expedition and lacked sufficient particulars.
Applying the established test for disclosure, the arbitrator found the sign-in sheets were arguably relevant, the request was sufficiently particularized, it did not amount to a fishing expedition, and production would not cause undue prejudice.
The employer was ordered to produce the sign-in sheets.
Adjournment granted and document production ordered in failure to accommodate grievance.
The union filed grievances alleging a failure to accommodate.
The parties appeared before the Grievance Settlement Board to make submissions on whether the next hearing date should be adjourned and on certain production issues.
The arbitrator granted the adjournment request because the grievor was scheduled to participate in a criminal trial.
The arbitrator also ordered the employer and the union to produce specific documents related to the grievor's medical status, accommodations, shift scheduling, and written communications.
Employer's motion to dismiss grievance claims for missing interim settlement time limits denied.
The employer brought a motion to dismiss the claims of ten employees in a group grievance regarding wage clawbacks, arguing the union failed to provide required information within the time limits set out in a First Interim Memorandum of Settlement.
The union argued the settlement only established an information-gathering process, not a final resolution of the grievance, and that a Second Interim Memorandum of Settlement clarified the cut-off date.
The arbitrator dismissed the employer's motion, finding the principle of sanctity of settlements did not apply to an interim process agreement and that equitable grounds favoured allowing the claims to proceed.
Union directed to produce medical documentation regarding grievor's ability to provide a will-say statement.
The Grievance Settlement Board directed the union to produce medical documentation regarding the grievor's ability to provide a will-say statement by a specified deadline.
The employer reserved the right to bring a motion to dismiss the grievance if the union failed to comply.
Grievance alleging breach of settlement for non-delivery of job postings dismissed; employer fulfilled courier obligations.
The union alleged that the employer breached a 2007 settlement agreement by failing to deliver job postings to the grievor's home by courier on three occasions.
The grievor, who had been on long-term disability for nearly 20 years, claimed $70,000 in damages for stress.
The arbitrator found that the employer had fulfilled its delivery obligations by sending the packages via courier, and the risk of non-receipt fell on the grievor when she failed to answer the door or retrieve the packages from the depot.
The grievance was dismissed, and the arbitrator imposed procedural requirements for any future similar claims.
Complaint challenging a letter of discipline dismissed as moot after the letter was removed from the personnel file.
The complainant challenged a letter of discipline for insubordination.
The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the complaint as moot, noting that the complainant had been on long-term disability and the letter of discipline had been removed from his personnel file after three years.
The Board found the complaint was moot because the remedy sought had been achieved and the letter no longer had any impact on the complainant's employment.
The complaint was dismissed.
Adjournment granted on consent with strict new deadline for union to provide grievor's will-say statement.
The union requested an adjournment of a scheduled hearing because counsel was unable to meet a previously ordered deadline to provide a fully particularized will-say statement for the grievor.
The employer consented to the adjournment on the condition that a new deadline be set and that failure to meet it would allow the employer to bring a motion to dismiss the grievance.
The arbitrator granted the adjournment, ordered the union to provide the will-say statement by June 7, 2019, and noted that any failure to meet the new deadline would require compelling reasons to avoid dismissal of the grievance.
Arbitrator limits grievance scope to post-settlement events and excludes LTIP processing claims due to JIBRC jurisdiction.
The union filed a grievance alleging ongoing harassment and discrimination.
The employer raised preliminary objections, arguing that a prior Memorandum of Settlement (MOS) signed on March 12, 2015, precluded reliance on any events prior to that date, and that allegations regarding the processing of the grievor's Long Term Income Protection (LTIP) claim fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Joint Insurance Benefits Review Committee (JIBRC).
The Arbitrator agreed with the employer on both points, finding the MOS settled all pre-signing matters and that the collective agreement conferred exclusive jurisdiction over LTIP disputes to JIBRC.
The union was directed to provide a fully particularized will-say statement for post-MOS allegations unrelated to the LTIP process.
Union ordered to provide particulars regarding unpaid break claims prior to hearing on retroactive compensation.
The parties reached a settlement regarding a 2017 grievance concerning registered nurses working during unpaid breaks, except for the issue of retroactive compensation.
The Union also sought to consolidate a 2014 grievance on the same issue.
The Arbitrator ordered the Union to provide particulars regarding the 2017 grievance, including a list of shifts worked during unpaid breaks without compensation, and scheduled a hearing to determine the scope of retroactive compensation and whether the grievances should be consolidated.
Employer ordered to produce all arguably relevant materials, including video recordings, to the Union.
The Union sought production of materials, including video recordings, arguably relevant to the grievances.
The Arbitrator ordered the Employer to produce the requested materials to Union counsel by January 31, 2019.
Adjournment granted on medical grounds, but complainant directed to respond in writing to timeliness issues.
The complainant requested an adjournment of a scheduled hearing date due to medical reasons.
The Employer opposed the request, arguing the medical evidence was insufficient.
The Board found the medical notes provided sufficient to warrant adjourning the oral hearing.
However, the Board noted the complainant had been able to submit written documents and participate in a limited fashion.
The Board directed the complainant to respond to specific factual assertions made by the Employer regarding the timeliness of two of his complaints, or provide more compelling medical evidence explaining his inability to do so.
Adjournment request denied pending receipt of sufficient medical evidence supporting complainant's inability to attend.
The complainant requested an adjournment of a scheduled hearing for three disciplinary complaints, asserting an inability to attend for medical reasons.
The employer opposed the request, noting that four prior hearing dates had already been adjourned and the complaints were over four years old.
The Board directed the complainant to provide sufficient and reliable medical evidence from a treating health care professional to support the adjournment request by a specified date, failing which the hearing would proceed as scheduled.
Grievances for stand-by pay dismissed; bear response protocol requirements met definition of on-call duty.
The union filed grievances on behalf of employees required to be available after hours to respond to human-bear conflicts under the employer's Bear Wise Protocol.
The employees were compensated at the on-call rate but claimed entitlement to the higher stand-by rate, arguing the protocol's response times required them to be immediately available to return to the workplace.
The arbitrator dismissed the grievances, finding that the employer's requirement for employees to respond within 30 minutes and be ready to respond within two hours met the collective agreement's definition of on-call duty, not stand-by time.
Case management directions issued for job competition arbitration, setting schedules and hearing time limits.
The Arbitrator issued case management directions for the arbitration of several grievances relating to a job competition.
The directions set out a schedule for the production of documents, the filing of declarations in lieu of oral evidence in chief, and strict time limits for cross-examination and oral argument at the hearing.
Arbitrator orders parties to resolve preliminary matters and crystallize issues in ambulance communication officers' grievances.
The Grievance Settlement Board issued an interim decision regarding grievances filed by Ambulance Communication Officers at the Central Ambulance Communication Centre in Oshawa.
Noting that the issues had not yet crystallized, the Arbitrator ordered the parties to address and resolve matters relating to interim grievances, particulars, productions, and the identification of issues by January 19, 2018, after which a teleconference would be scheduled.
Whistleblower reprisal complaints dismissed; employer established bona fide reasons for suspension and contract non-renewal.
The complainant, a contract Operational Manager at a correctional complex, alleged that his suspension pending investigation and the subsequent non-renewal of his contract were reprisals for reporting a colleague's time theft to the Deputy Minister.
The employer maintained that the suspension was a bona fide response to allegations that the complainant had unauthorized access to restricted keys and areas, and that the contract was not renewed because the complainant declined offers to work at other institutions due to his fears of the 'Code of Silence'.
The Board dismissed the complaints, finding that the employer's actions were motivated by legitimate managerial concerns rather than a desire to punish the complainant for his disclosure of wrongdoing.
