140 total
Consent order issued for disclosure of grievor's medical and WSIB files with confidentiality conditions.
The parties agreed on consent to an order regarding the disclosure of the grievor's medical and WSIB files.
The arbitrator issued the order, which requires the union and grievor to produce all arguably relevant medical and WSIB records to employer counsel.
The order imposes strict confidentiality conditions, limiting the use of the documents to the arbitration and restricting who may access them.
Grievance alleging systemic racial discrimination and reprisal in career advancement denied for lack of evidence.
The grievor, a Black man employed as a Correctional Officer, alleged that the Employer engaged in systemic discrimination, harassment, and reprisal, preventing his career advancement.
He cited several incidents, including unsuccessful applications for management positions, a disciplinary meeting regarding an email he sent, a scheduling error, and an investigation into preferential treatment of an inmate.
The Grievance Settlement Board found it lacked jurisdiction over the management position competitions.
Regarding the other incidents, the Board concluded there was no direct or circumstantial evidence that the grievor's race was a factor in the Employer's actions.
The grievance was denied.
Grievance dismissed; employer's pandemic-related Monday store closures negated contingent collective agreement right to 17 Saturdays off.
The Union filed a grievance alleging the Employer (LCBO) violated the collective agreement by failing to provide permanent full-time employees with 17 Saturdays off during the 2020-2021 contract year.
The Employer had closed all retail stores on Mondays in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
The Arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that the collective agreement right to 17 Saturdays off was expressly contingent on employees working in stores that did not observe a weekly closing day.
The Arbitrator held that the Employer's management rights permitted it to institute a weekly closing day for all stores, and the Employer was not estopped from altering its past practice of operating most stores seven days a week.
Employer breached duty to accommodate and harassed employee by ignoring medical restrictions and demanding return to pre-disability position.
The grievor, a classified Correctional Officer, was on a temporary assignment as a Probation and Parole Officer.
After her temporary assignment ended, she was recalled to her home position at a detention centre.
She provided medical documentation stating she could not work as a Correctional Officer or in a correctional environment due to a permanent disability.
The employer insisted she return to her home position and did not explore other accommodation options, including her previous Probation and Parole Officer role.
The Grievance Settlement Board found that the employer failed to comply with its procedural and substantive duties to accommodate the grievor under the Human Rights Code.
The Board also found that the employer harassed and bullied the grievor during a return-to-work meeting by aggressively pressuring her to return to her home position despite clear medical restrictions.
Grievances relating to her time on temporary assignment were dismissed.
Grievances dismissed for untimeliness; discrimination claim dismissed for lack of prima facie case.
The Employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss two grievances for being untimely, to dismiss the human rights discrimination claim in a third grievance for failing to establish a prima facie case, and to strike certain particulars.
The Arbitrator found that the two grievances were filed at least three months beyond the mandatory 30-day time limit and declined to extend the time limits under the Labour Relations Act due to the lack of a satisfactory explanation for the delay.
The Arbitrator also dismissed the discrimination claim, finding no evidence that the Employer knew or perceived the grievor to have a disability prior to the grievance.
Finally, the Arbitrator struck a paragraph from the particulars that relied on statements made during a stage 2 grievance meeting, applying grievance procedure privilege.
Employer ordered to produce investigator's report to union counsel subject to strict confidentiality conditions.
The union sought production of an Investigator's Report dated April 16, 2019.
The Grievance Settlement Board directed the employer to provide a copy of the report to union counsel, who may forward it to specific local union officials.
The recipients were ordered to maintain strict confidentiality and use the report solely for preparing for the litigation.
Employer's motion to dismiss grievance for delay denied; employee not required to forensically audit pension statements.
The employer brought a motion to dismiss a grievance regarding missing pension contributions on the basis that it was not filed within the 30-day time limit set out in the collective agreement.
The grievor discovered in 2014 that there was an 18-month period in 1993-1994 with no pension contributions, and learned in 2015 that the employer was responsible for failing to remit the withheld funds.
The employer argued the grievor ought reasonably to have discovered the issue much earlier by reviewing his annual pension statements.
The arbitrator dismissed the motion, finding it was not reasonable to expect an employee to conduct a detailed forensic analysis of annual statements to verify that every deducted contribution had been properly remitted, absent any indication of a problem.
The grievance was deemed timely.
Procedural orders issued for witness exclusion, document confidentiality, and ASL interpretation in grievance arbitration.
The Grievance Settlement Board issued procedural orders ahead of a hearing.
The orders included the exclusion of witnesses, strict confidentiality and limited use of produced documents, and the provision of American Sign Language interpretation at the hearing.
Employer's motion for no prima facie case dismissed; Union's Human Rights Code theory deemed reasonable.
The Union filed grievances challenging the Employer's calculation of a 1.4% lump sum payment for employees on approved leaves of absence.
The Employer brought a preliminary motion arguing the Union failed to establish a prima facie case, asserting the collective agreement clearly excluded third-party payments (like EI or WSIB) from the calculation.
The Union argued the language included all payments for approved leaves and that excluding third-party payments created an adverse impact based on prohibited grounds under the Human Rights Code.
The Arbitrator dismissed the Employer's motion, finding the Union's Human Rights Code theory was reasonable and capable of supporting a violation if the particulars were proven true.
Grievance dismissed due to the Union's failure to provide sufficient particulars regarding unpaid break claims.
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.
Motion to dismiss grievance granted; 18-month delay in referring to arbitration was extreme and unjustified.
The employer brought a motion to dismiss a grievance regarding a five-day suspension as untimely.
The grievance was referred to arbitration 18 months after the deadline.
The union requested an extension of time limits under the collective agreement and s. 48(16) of the Ontario Labour Relations Act.
The arbitrator declined to exercise discretion to extend the time limits, finding the 18-month delay to be extreme and the reasons for the delay to be weak, as the grievor was familiar with the grievance process and had no valid reason for the delay after initial settlement discussions ended.
The grievance was dismissed.
Grievances dismissed for abuse of process due to grievor's repeated failure to comply with interim orders.
The employer brought a motion to dismiss the grievor's grievances for abuse of process and failure to comply with interim orders.
The grievor had repeatedly refused to comply with the arbitrator's directions to attend at the union's office with her counsel to be cross-examined via teleconference, citing medical reasons but failing to provide adequate medical documentation to support her refusal.
The arbitrator found that the grievor's conduct was intentional, deliberate, and manipulative, demonstrating a total unwillingness to accept the arbitrator's authority.
The motion was granted and the grievances were dismissed for abuse of process.
Board amends prior decision regarding medical consent forms pursuant to parties' settlement of policy grievance.
The parties reached a settlement resolving a 2014 policy grievance and an associated application for judicial review.
As part of the settlement, the parties requested that the Grievance Settlement Board issue a further decision amending two paragraphs of its July 18, 2017 decision regarding the breadth of a medical consent form and the employer's entitlement to health information.
The Board ordered the requested amendments and deemed the grievance and judicial review application withdrawn.
Nurse suspended for four months for harassing witnesses from a prior discipline hearing on Facebook.
The Member faced allegations of professional misconduct for sending inappropriate Facebook messages to potential witnesses from a prior discipline hearing and disclosing confidential information obtained during that proceeding.
The Member admitted to the allegations via an Agreed Statement of Facts.
The Discipline Committee found the Member committed professional misconduct, noting the conduct was unprofessional and dishonourable.
Accepting a Joint Submission on Order, the Committee ordered a reprimand, a four-month suspension, and terms including meetings with a regulatory expert and employer notification.
Arbitrator directed parties to agree on letters to grievor's doctors for medical information.
In a grievance arbitration, the Arbitrator directed the parties to confer and agree upon letters to be sent to the grievor's family doctor and a specialist.
The Arbitrator ordered that once the letters were agreed upon, they would be appended to an order directing the doctors to respond.
The Arbitrator also granted the employer's request to make future submissions on whether the grievances should be dismissed.
Union permitted to share documents with Grievor for hearing preparation subject to strict confidentiality conditions.
In an ongoing arbitration proceeding held virtually due to COVID-19, the Union requested permission to share arguably relevant documents with the Grievor to prepare its case.
The Employer raised confidentiality concerns.
The Arbitrator issued an interim order permitting the Union to share the documents with the Grievor for the purpose of preparing for cross-examination, subject to strict conditions regarding copying, use, return or destruction, and ongoing confidentiality.
The Arbitrator warned that a breach of the order could result in the dismissal of the grievances.
Arbitrator orders evidence in chief to be provided by written declaration for video-conference hearing.
The union grieved 3, 5, and 7-day suspensions imposed on employees for failing to follow managerial meal service directives.
During a conference call to discuss the process for a video-conference hearing, the arbitrator issued case management directions.
The arbitrator ordered that evidence in chief take the form of written declarations, set a schedule for filing the declarations, and established rules for oral evidence and cross-examination at the hearing.
Dismissal of three correctional officers for dereliction of duty mitigated to 20-day suspension without pay.
Three correctional officers with 15 to 20 years of service were dismissed for gross dereliction of duty, including failing to complete watch tours, manipulating the OPMAN system, and failing to complete accurate inmate counts.
The arbitrator found that while the conduct was serious and could justify dismissal, the grievors' remorse, taking of full responsibility, and significant discipline-free service indicated they were rehabilitatable.
The arbitrator rescinded the dismissals and substituted a 20-day suspension without pay, reinstating the grievors without back wages.
Nurse suspended for 3 months for failing to assess patients and copying colleagues' documentation.
The Member, a Registered Nurse employed as a Care Coordinator, faced allegations of professional misconduct for failing to perform adequate in-home assessments, failing to follow up with patients, and copying colleagues' documentation.
The Member admitted to the allegations and agreed to a statement of facts.
The Discipline Committee found the Member committed professional misconduct and engaged in dishonourable and unprofessional conduct.
Accepting a joint submission on penalty, the Committee ordered a reprimand, a 3-month suspension, and various terms, conditions, and limitations on the Member's certificate of registration.
Motions to consolidate grievances and alter order of proceedings dismissed; grievances to be heard together.
The union brought motions to consolidate a benefits grievance with existing discipline and discharge grievances, and to determine the order of proceedings.
The union sought to have the benefits grievance heard first due to the grievor's pressing need for dental care, and to have the discharge grievance heard before the discipline grievances.
The arbitrator declined to consolidate the grievances as they did not share common questions of fact or law, but ordered them to be heard together.
The arbitrator ruled that the benefits grievance would be heard after the discipline and discharge grievances, and that the employer could proceed with the discipline grievances before the discharge grievance to avoid prejudice to its case.
