83 total
Grievor awarded unpaid mileage and travel time limited to 30 days prior to grievance filing.
The grievor, a court clerk, filed a grievance seeking compensation for unpaid mileage and travel time dating back to 2013 when he was transferred to the Toronto region.
The arbitrator found that the employer's failure to pay constituted a continuing breach of the collective agreement.
However, under the collective agreement's 30-day time limit for filing grievances, the grievor was only entitled to compensation for the 30 days prior to the grievance filing date.
The employer was ordered to pay $177.24 for travel time and $100.88 for mileage.
Unopposed motion for production of documents in grievance arbitration granted.
The Union requested an order for the production of documents in relation to a grievance filed by a correctional officer.
The Employer did not oppose the request.
The Grievance Settlement Board directed the Employer to produce the requested documents by a specified date.
Grievances dismissed; Board lacks jurisdiction under CECBA to order upward reclassification of positions.
The union filed grievances on behalf of two Engineering Service Technicians who alleged they were improperly placed on the pay grid compared to colleagues in another region performing the same duties.
The employer objected that the grievances were in substance classification grievances.
The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievances, finding that section 51 of the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act explicitly prohibits the Board from assuming jurisdiction to order an upward reclassification.
Grievor awarded one day's pay after employer denied compensation for a pre-existing appointment upon reinstatement.
The parties disputed the calculation of remedial compensation following a previous decision that reinstated the grievor.
The employer required the grievor to return to work on short notice, and when she was unavailable for three days due to prior commitments, the employer did not pay her for those days.
The union argued this violated the reinstatement order.
The Grievance Settlement Board found that the employer's timeline was generally reasonable, but the grievor was reasonably unavailable for one of the three days due to a pre-existing appointment.
The Board ordered the employer to pay the grievor for one day of lost wages.
Human rights application dismissed as transfer issue was previously decided in grievance arbitration.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination regarding his transfer to another detention centre, denial of promotion, and placement in an attendance management program.
The respondent requested dismissal under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the transfer issue was already dealt with in a prior grievance arbitration.
The Tribunal found the transfer issue was appropriately dealt with by the arbitrator and dismissed it to prevent duplicative litigation.
The Tribunal also dismissed the promotion and attendance management allegations for having no reasonable prospect of success, as the promotion claim was speculative and placement in an attendance management program alone does not establish discrimination.
The application was dismissed in its entirety.
Grievance allowed; parking expense reimbursed due to past practice, but employer's policy interpretation upheld prospectively.
The union filed a grievance alleging the employer violated the collective agreement and the Travel, Meal, and Hospitality Expenses Directive by denying the grievor's parking expense claim.
The grievor had picked up a co-worker on his way to a meeting at headquarters and claimed parking costs, arguing it constituted ministry business.
The arbitrator found that picking up a co-worker did not constitute ministry business under the policy.
However, because the employer had paid the expense in similar circumstances on three prior occasions, the arbitrator ordered the employer to reimburse the grievor for this specific claim, while affirming the employer's right to enforce the policy prospectively.
Grievances dismissed; accommodation grievance was withdrawn and non-disciplinary letter of counsel grievance was inarbitrable.
The union referred a grievance regarding a letter of counsel to arbitration.
At the hearing, the union also sought to litigate a second grievance regarding workplace accommodation.
The employer objected, arguing the accommodation grievance had been settled and withdrawn, and the letter of counsel grievance was inarbitrable as the letter was non-disciplinary.
The Board found that the accommodation grievance had indeed been withdrawn by the union following an agreement on an accommodation plan.
Furthermore, the Board held that the letter of counsel was non-disciplinary and therefore inarbitrable.
The Board rejected the union's attempt to expand the scope of the letter of counsel grievance to include allegations of discrimination and failure to accommodate, finding it would constitute an improper expansion.
Both grievances were dismissed.
Employer's motion for non-suit in grievance over removal of protective equipment dismissed.
The union filed grievances alleging the employer violated the collective agreement and the Occupational Health and Safety Act by revoking the 'conservation officer' designation for Agriculture Investigators, which resulted in the removal of their side-arms and pepper spray.
After the union closed its case, the employer moved for a non-suit.
Applying the standard that a non-suit must be denied if there is some evidence to support a prima facie case, the Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the employer's motion.
Pursuant to the parties' agreement, the Board provided no reasons for its conclusion.
Grievance Settlement Board orders six grievances from two correctional officers to be heard together.
The Grievance Settlement Board heard submissions regarding the grievances of two Correctional Officers.
The Board ordered that all six grievances be heard together, without prejudice to either party bringing procedural objections or motions on any of the grievances.
Grievance dismissed; 20-day suspension upheld for correctional officer who directed a racial slur at an inmate.
The union grieved a 20-day unpaid suspension imposed on a correctional officer for using a racial slur during an exchange with an inmate.
The union acknowledged that discipline was warranted but argued the penalty was excessive given the grievor's clear disciplinary record and apologies.
The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that the use of a racial slur by a correctional officer towards an inmate constitutes extremely serious misconduct.
The arbitrator held that the 20-day suspension was reasonable and necessary to convey a strong message of deterrence, particularly because the grievor failed to report the incident immediately.
Human rights application challenging WSIB benefits denial dismissed for no reasonable prospect of success and delay.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to employment because of disability against her former employer (the Ministry of the Attorney General) and the WSIB.
The application stemmed from a 2005 WSIB decision denying ongoing benefits for a workplace injury, which the applicant claimed failed to properly account for her pre-existing disabilities.
Following a preliminary hearing, the Tribunal dismissed the application, finding it had no reasonable prospect of success as it essentially sought to appeal a WSIB benefits decision without any factual allegations of discriminatory treatment.
The Tribunal also found the application was filed out of time without a good faith explanation for the seven-year delay.
Grievance for relocation expenses dismissed; voluntary transfer did not trigger entitlement under employer policy.
The complainant grieved the employer's refusal to pay relocation expenses after he was granted a compassionate transfer to a new detention centre.
The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the complaint for failing to disclose a prima facie case.
The Public Service Grievance Board allowed the motion and dismissed the grievance, finding that the transfer was employee-requested and did not fall within the recruitment activity exception of the Relocation Expenses Directive.
As no term or condition of employment was violated, the Board had no jurisdiction to grant the requested remedy.
Grievance allowed in part; dismissal for failing to disclose off-duty impaired driving charge reduced to suspension.
The grievor, a correctional officer, was discharged for failing to disclose an off-duty impaired driving charge for two years, contrary to the employer's policies.
The union grieved the dismissal, arguing it was disproportionate.
The Grievance Settlement Board found that while the grievor committed a serious breach of policy, the off-duty conduct did not strike at the core of the employment relationship.
Applying the McKinley and Dowling frameworks, the Board concluded that dismissal was an overly harsh and disproportionate response.
The grievance was allowed in part, substituting a 20-day unpaid suspension and ordering reinstatement with partial compensation.
Scheduled grievance arbitration hearing adjourned to a new date.
The Grievance Settlement Board heard representations from the union and the employer regarding proceeding with a scheduled hearing.
The Board ordered the hearing scheduled for June 3, 2015, to be adjourned to October 19, 2015.
Interim procedural order issued for production of documents and particulars in a harassment grievance.
The Grievance Settlement Board issued an interim procedural order directing the employer to respond to the union's particulars and provide an investigation report into alleged harassment, subject to confidentiality undertakings.
The Board also set a timeline for additional document requests and responses, and directed the parties to explore settlement prior to the next hearing date.
Procedural timetable ordered for delivery of particulars and document disclosure.
The Grievance Settlement Board issued a procedural order establishing a timetable for the delivery of written particulars, document disclosure, and the identification of preliminary issues in relation to the grievor's grievances.
Grievance dismissed; job posting provisions in collective agreement do not apply to seasonal or fixed term positions.
The union filed a grievance alleging the employer breached the collective agreement when it awarded a seasonal recurring contract to an employee with less seniority than the grievor.
The employer raised a preliminary objection that the grievance was inarbitrable because the grievor was a fixed term employee applying for a seasonal position, and the job posting provisions in the collective agreement only applied to vacancies in the Regular Service.
The Grievance Settlement Board upheld the preliminary objection, finding that the collective agreement's posting and selection provisions did not apply to seasonal or fixed term positions, and therefore the Board lacked jurisdiction to hear the grievance on its merits.
Union precluded from expanding scope of grievance at arbitration to include new issue not previously raised.
The employer brought a motion to limit the scope of the grievance at arbitration.
The grievor had been overpaid while on sick leave, and the employer sought to recoup the overpayment.
The original grievance and discussions during the grievance procedure focused on the employer's right to recoup the overpayment, given that the error was made by management.
At arbitration, the union attempted to argue that the grievor was entitled to full pay and that there was no overpayment.
The Grievance Settlement Board held that this was a new issue not inherent in the original grievance and could not be raised at arbitration.
The employer's motion was granted.
Employer ordered to produce arguably relevant letter despite potential removal from grievor's personnel file.
The union filed a grievance regarding a wage deduction of $23,863.02 for an alleged overpayment.
In a preliminary motion, the union sought production of a July 2011 letter written to the grievor by her former manager.
The employer objected to its production.
The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the employer to produce the letter, finding it arguably relevant to the issues and subject to production even if it had been removed from the grievor's personnel file pursuant to a previous settlement.
Employer's motion to consolidate discipline grievances of three correctional officers arising from same incident granted.
The employer brought a preliminary motion to have the discipline grievances of three correctional officers heard together.
The grievances all stemmed from the same alleged use-of-force incident involving an inmate and the ensuing investigation.
The union opposed the motion, arguing that the legal issues were specific to each grievor and that hearing them together would cause delay and prejudice.
The Grievance Settlement Board granted the motion, finding that hearing the matters together would be more efficient given the significant overlap in evidence and would avoid the possibility of conflicting findings of fact.
