140 total
Nurse reprimanded and permanently resigned after admitting to excessive force and verbal abuse against infants.
The College of Nurses of Ontario brought professional misconduct allegations against a registered nurse for using excessive force and verbal abuse while handling infant clients in a neonatal intensive care unit.
The member admitted to the allegations, including roughly handling infants, unnecessarily removing a breathing mask, and using profanity.
The Discipline Committee found the member committed professional misconduct and engaged in disgraceful, dishonourable, and unprofessional conduct.
Pursuant to a joint submission, the Committee ordered an oral reprimand, noting the member had already signed an undertaking to permanently resign from the College.
Grievor ordered to provide detailed medical information to justify attending arbitration via teleconference.
The Union requested that the grievor be permitted to attend the arbitration hearings via teleconference for medical reasons.
The Employer objected and brought a motion to compel her in-person attendance, citing credibility concerns in a harassment dispute.
The Arbitrator found the initial medical note insufficient and ordered the Union to provide specific questions to the grievor's physician regarding her medical restrictions and the expected duration of her inability to attend in person.
Failure to provide the requested information would result in the Employer's motion being granted.
Grievance dismissed; employee failed to complete required service for full-time conversion due to unpaid absences.
The union grieved that the employee should have been converted to full-time status sooner under Article 31A15 of the collective agreement.
The union relied on an email from the grievor's supervisor indicating a conversion date.
The employer argued the grievor failed to reach the 18-month threshold due to absences not covered by attendance credits, which broke her service.
The arbitrator agreed with the employer, finding the email was conditional and could not supersede the collective agreement, and dismissed the grievance.
Grievance dismissed; new position found substantially equivalent as overtime opportunities are not an entitlement.
The grievor, a former Correctional Officer, was reinstated to employment following a previous arbitration decision that substituted his discharge with a suspension.
The employer placed him in an Electronic Supervision Officer (ESO) position.
The union grieved, arguing the ESO position was not 'substantially equivalent' to his former role because it offered significantly less opportunity for overtime pay.
The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that the two positions were substantially equivalent in skill, responsibility, and base pay.
The arbitrator held that the quantum of overtime previously earned could not be considered in the equivalency assessment, as overtime is a management right and not an employee entitlement.
Employer's motion to limit evidence to three years prior to the grievance granted.
The grievor filed a grievance alleging systemic discrimination and harassment that prevented his career advancement.
The Employer brought a preliminary motion to restrict the scope of evidence to incidents occurring within three years prior to the grievance (the 'three-year rule').
The Union argued for an extension to establish a pattern of discrimination.
The Arbitrator granted the Employer's motion, finding that the three-year period provided a fair balance and that no unique circumstances justified a departure from the rule.
Judicial review dismissed; WSIAT reasonably found off-duty paramedic injured while assisting emergency was in course of employment.
The applicant municipality sought judicial review of a Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT) decision granting workers' compensation benefits to an off-duty paramedic.
The paramedic injured his bicep while assisting on-duty paramedics with a medical emergency at a music festival.
The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that WSIAT reasonably applied the 'place, time and activity' criteria from the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board's policy to conclude the injury occurred in the course of employment.
Union ordered to produce grievor's medical documents prior to arbitration hearing or face dismissal.
In preparation for a grievance arbitration hearing scheduled for July 2018, the Arbitrator ordered the Union to produce all arguably relevant medical documents regarding the grievor's return to work following a 2012 WSIB injury.
The Union was directed to provide the documents by May 11, 2018, failing which the grievances could be dismissed.
A confidentiality order was also imposed limiting disclosure of the medical information.
Two union grievances resolved by settlement and two dismissed by the arbitrator.
The parties appeared before the Grievance Settlement Board to address four outstanding union grievances.
Two of the grievances were resolved pursuant to Minutes of Settlement.
Having regard to the submissions of the parties, the arbitrator dismissed the remaining two grievances.
Grievances dismissed after grievor failed to attend hearing and union presented no evidence.
The grievor failed to attend the scheduled arbitration hearing despite receiving proper notice and being warned of the consequences by union counsel.
The union presented no evidence on the remaining issues of accommodation, harassment, and discrimination.
The employer requested that the grievances be dismissed and the grievor's actions be declared an abuse of process.
The arbitrator dismissed the grievances due to the lack of evidence but declined to decide whether the grievor's actions constituted an abuse of process.
Consent order issued for a six-month trial period assigning the grievor to pre-trial duties.
The parties appeared before the Grievance Settlement Board regarding multiple grievances.
Based on materials and statements, including the grievor's assertion that he could fulfill the duties of a Court Clerk and Registrar during pre-trial proceedings without accommodation other than periodic standing and stretching, the Arbitrator ordered a six-month trial period for pre-trial assignments by consent.
The balance of the grievances were dismissed on consent, with a letter of reprimand replaced by a letter of counsel.
Board lacks jurisdiction to award damages for workplace injuries compensable under the WSIA.
The union grieved that the employer violated health and safety provisions when correctional officers were exposed to smoke from fires set by inmates.
The employer brought a preliminary motion arguing that the Board lacked jurisdiction to award monetary redress or damages because the injuries were compensable under the Workers Safety and Insurance Act (WSIA).
The arbitrator upheld the employer's motion, finding that the WSIA's historic trade-off precludes awarding damages for compensable workplace injuries, even if the union frames the claim as a series of collective agreement breaches.
Parties in unjust termination grievance ordered to exchange particulars and will-say statements.
In a grievance arbitration concerning an allegation of unjust termination, the Employer requested particulars from the Union.
The Union resisted, arguing the Employer should provide particulars first.
The Arbitrator ordered both parties to exchange particulars and will-say statements on a set schedule prior to the hearing dates.
Employer directed to amend health information consent forms to ensure knowledgeable consent and protect privacy.
The union filed a policy grievance challenging the employer's Health Information Program Guide and consent forms, arguing they violated privacy rights under PHIPA and FIPPA by seeking overly broad, prospective, and multi-purpose consent for the release of employee medical information.
The Grievance Settlement Board found that while the employer's actual practices largely complied with legal requirements, the written policy and forms were drafted too broadly and could be interpreted in a manner that violated privacy rights.
The Board directed the employer to amend its documents to ensure employees are clearly informed of the specific medical professional being contacted, the exact information requested, and the specific purpose for the request, and to eliminate prospective consent language.
Grievance alleging nepotism in awarding training opportunity dismissed; grievor failed to meet objective qualifications.
The grievor, a warehouse employee, filed a grievance alleging the employer acted in bad faith and was motivated by nepotism when it rejected his application for a maintenance service person training opportunity and instead selected the warehouse director's nephew.
The arbitrator found that the grievor failed to meet the required qualifications, including passing an aptitude test and providing a relevant training certificate.
The arbitrator concluded there was no evidence the warehouse director was involved in the selection process or that the maintenance manager's decision was motivated by nepotism or a desire to impede the grievor's career advancement.
The grievance was dismissed.
Employer's motion to dismiss grievances granted; employer directed to pay $500 to union counsel.
The employer brought a motion to dismiss the grievances of four individuals, which the union opposed.
Following submissions, the Vice-Chair directed the employer to pay $500 to the union's counsel in trust and dismissed all issues raised in the grievances.
The remaining hearing dates were cancelled.
Union's right to participate in accommodation process is limited to specific circumstances and not absolute.
The Union filed a policy grievance alleging that the Employer's unilaterally implemented accommodation and return-to-work policies violated the collective agreement and the Human Rights Code by failing to mandate Union participation in all aspects of the accommodation process.
The Grievance Settlement Board held that the Union's right to participate is not absolute and does not extend to all accommodation meetings or the development of general policies.
Applying the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Renaud, the Board found that the Union is entitled to participate only when an employee specifically requests representation, when a proposed accommodation impacts collective agreement rights, or when the Union's cooperation is required to waive a discriminatory provision.
Grievor's discharge substituted with a nine-month suspension without compensation following an expedited arbitration process.
The grievor grieved his discharge from employment.
The parties agreed to an expedited process and requested a bottom-line decision without reasons.
After reviewing an Agreed Statement of Facts, video clips, and viva voce evidence regarding the context, mitigating factors, and the grievor's remorse, the Vice-Chair substituted the termination with a suspension without compensation from March 31, 2016, to December 31, 2016.
The grievor was ordered reinstated with full seniority effective January 1, 2017.
Grievor's request to personally withdraw grievance denied as only the union has carriage rights.
The grievor requested to personally withdraw the balance of her grievance to proceed before the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal, citing delays, travel costs, and a desire to represent herself.
The union did not request the withdrawal, and the employer opposed it.
The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the request, holding that only the union has carriage rights to withdraw a grievance, not an individual grievor.
The Board also noted that the issues already decided were related to the remaining issues, and issued procedural orders to expedite the remainder of the hearing.
Preliminary motion to dismiss grievance granted; nepotism allegations failed to establish prima facie case.
The union grieved the employer's rejection of the grievor's application for a service person position, alleging the successful candidates were chosen based on nepotism.
The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the grievance, arguing the grievor was rejected because he failed the aptitude test and interview, and thus lacked the required qualifications under the collective agreement.
The Grievance Settlement Board granted the employer's motion and dismissed the grievance, finding that the union's allegations, even if proven, would not establish prima facie proof that the 2015 job competition was tainted by nepotism, and that the employer was entitled to rely on the grievor's test scores.
Union ordered to provide full particulars of grievance allegations limited to events after May 2015.
The Grievance Settlement Board issued a procedural order requiring the Union to provide full particulars of all allegations contained in three grievances by March 1, 2017.
The particulars are limited to events occurring after May 29, 2015, pursuant to prior Minutes of Settlement.
The Ministry was directed to advise the Union of any preliminary objections by April 1, 2017.
