Tim Hannigan

The union filed a grievance alleging the employer improperly excluded the grievor from a job competition for a service person position.

The grievor claimed he handed his resume and cover letter to a supervisor to pass along to the hiring manager, but he did not submit the required tracking form.

The arbitrator found that while the grievor likely handed the documents to the supervisor, there was no evidence the application was received by the hiring manager before the deadline.

The grievance was dismissed.

The employer brought preliminary motions to strike various particulars in a grievance arbitration concerning the denial of training and job opportunities to the grievor.

The Grievance Settlement Board excluded hearsay evidence, evidence of a settled health and safety grievance, and evidence of a prior tuition denial, finding them irrelevant or insufficient to show a prima facie case of retaliation.

However, the Board allowed the union to lead evidence of alleged nepotism, finding the particulars sufficient to shift the onus to the employer.

The Board also denied the union's request to refer a 2012 grievance to arbitration due to a four-year delay.

The grievor, a correctional officer with 21 years of unblemished service, was discharged for using excessive force on two inmates and failing to accurately report the incident.

The grievor admitted to the misconduct prior to suspension and expressed genuine remorse.

The arbitrator found that the employment relationship was not irreparably damaged due to the grievor's long, discipline-free record, his early admission of fault, and the severe financial impact of the termination on his family.

The discharge was substituted with a lengthy suspension, and the employer was directed to reinstate the grievor to a substantially equivalent position that does not involve direct contact with inmates, pursuant to the restrictions in the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act.

The Union filed five grievances alleging breaches of the collective agreement, specifically Article 3, claiming a course of conduct amounting to bullying or harassment by management.

The Employer brought a motion arguing the grievances failed to make out a prima facie case.

The Vice-Chair reviewed the particulars of the five incidents, which involved two separate managers over seven or eight months, and found that none of the incidents individually or collectively established a plausible basis for bullying or harassment.

The grievances were dismissed for failing to make out a prima facie case.

The union filed grievances alleging the employer failed to make reasonable provisions for safety and health following an incident at the Toronto South Detention Centre.

The employer brought a motion to dismiss two grievances for failure to prosecute and raised concerns about the union's failure to comply with a prior Board order regarding disclosure and particulars.

The union withdrew one grievance and requested time to seek instructions on the other.

The Grievance Settlement Board directed the union to advise whether it would pursue the remaining grievance and ordered the union to provide all outstanding disclosure and particulars by a specified date, failing which it would be precluded from leading evidence on related assertions.

In a mediation/arbitration concerning rest periods at the Hamilton-Wentworth Detention Centre, the Grievance Settlement Board issued a production order.

The parties were directed to produce all arguably relevant documents from January 2012 to December 2014, including calendar books, payroll records, overtime records, daily rosters, and sick time records.

The parties were also directed to meet and agree on a statement of facts.

The Union alleged that the Employer breached a Memorandum of Settlement by failing to locate and return Black History Month posters from 2013 to the grievor, and that the Employer misled the grievor into signing the settlement knowing the posters were destroyed.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the allegations, finding that the Employer fulfilled its obligation to assist in searching for the posters, and that there was no evidence to support the claim that the Employer misled the grievor.

The union filed grievances regarding workplace accommodation and allegations of past discrimination and harassment for a correctional officer.

In a bifurcated process, the arbitrator first considered whether the grievor required accommodation on a go-forward basis regarding her ability to climb stairs.

Following a jointly agreed independent medical examination by an orthopedic surgeon, which concluded the grievor had no physical limitation preventing her from climbing stairs 7-10 times per shift, the arbitrator found no accommodation was needed.

The arbitrator then issued procedural directions for the second phase of the hearing concerning liability for past discrimination and harassment.

The parties entered into a Memorandum of Settlement but unanticipated circumstances arose regarding its interpretation and implementation.

Following a telephone conference, the Vice-Chair ordered that the terms of the settlement be held in abeyance pending further discussions between the parties, to be scheduled after April 30, 2016.

The parties reached a settlement regarding three grievors in a group grievance.

For the remaining grievors, the Vice-Chair found that the particulars filed did not disclose a prima facie case of any violation of the collective agreement.

The grievance was dismissed with respect to the remaining grievors.

The employer brought two preliminary motions in a series of grievances alleging workplace harassment and discrimination.

The first motion argued that the union's particulars improperly expanded the scope of the grievances.

The Vice-Chair dismissed this motion, finding that a liberal reading of the grievances clearly indicated allegations of harassment and discrimination from the outset.

The second motion sought to limit the evidence to three years prior to the October 2013 grievance.

The Vice-Chair granted this motion in part, applying the Board's general three-year guideline but calculating it from the date of the first grievance in December 2012, while leaving open the possibility of admitting evidence of a specific 2004 incident if deemed relevant at the hearing.

The Grievance Settlement Board directed the employer to forthwith produce the accommodation files of three individuals to the Union.

The union filed grievances on behalf of two employees regarding the employer's failure to provide a scent-free work environment and an alleged breach of privacy during a meeting about a scent complaint.

The parties resolved most issues but the union sought damages for the delay in addressing the scent issues and for the privacy breach.

The Grievance Settlement Board denied the request for damages, finding that the employer and the Joint Health and Safety Committee had engaged in good faith efforts to address the complex scent issues, and that the alleged privacy breach was on the lower end of the scale and occurred during a good faith effort to resolve a complaint.

The union filed a group grievance raising health and safety concerns regarding light levels in the workplace.

During a mediation-arbitration, the Grievance Settlement Board issued an interim direction ordering the parties to contact the Ministry of Labour for clarification of a previous order regarding light levels.

In the interim, the Board directed that the workplace blinds be closed between 7:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m.

The grievor filed eight grievances in 2013 relating to a workplace injury sustained in 2006 and the employer's subsequent conduct, including an alleged failure to investigate her complaints and properly maintain vehicles.

The employer raised preliminary objections, arguing the grievances were untimely and barred by issue estoppel, as a previous grievance regarding the 2006 incident was dismissed in 2011.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that the grievances were not continuing in nature and were filed several years beyond the collective agreement's time limits.

The Board declined to extend the time limits under section 48(16) of the Labour Relations Act due to the extreme delay.

The Board also found that the health and safety allegations were barred by issue estoppel, and that the employer's participation in WSIB proceedings was protected by absolute privilege.

All grievances were dismissed.

During a group grievance arbitration alleging the employer failed to make reasonable provisions for the health and safety of Environmental Officers, the union sought disclosure of a Crown brief from a related prosecution under the Nutrient Management Act.

The Crown consented to disclosure but required an order from the Board due to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Board ordered the production of the Crown brief subject to conditions restricting its use to the arbitration and requiring the redaction of irrelevant third-party personal information.

The union filed grievances on behalf of two employees who were required by the employer to provide medical certificates for sick leave absences of less than five days.

The employer argued it had a reasonable suspicion of sick leave abuse based on a pattern of absences.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that while the employer has the discretion to require medical certificates for short absences where abuse is suspected, it failed to properly exercise that discretion.

The employer did not meaningfully consider the individual circumstances of the grievors or seek their input before making the decision.

The Board upheld the grievances, declaring that the employer violated the collective agreement by improperly exercising its discretion and by withholding sick pay pending receipt of the medical certificates.

The union sought an adjournment of the hearing, which the employer opposed.

The Vice-Chair granted the adjournment on the condition that the hearing continue on May 28, 2014.

The union filed 53 identically worded grievances on behalf of Pay and Benefits Specialists, alleging violations of the collective agreement and the Occupational Health and Safety Act due to increased duties following the introduction of a new software system.

The employer brought a motion to dismiss the grievances for failing to disclose a prima facie case and for being disguised classification grievances.

The Grievance Settlement Board upheld the employer's motion, finding that the facts asserted could not substantiate a prima facie violation and that the true substance of the grievances was a request for upward reclassification, which the Board has no jurisdiction to order under section 51 of the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act.

The Member, a registered nurse, faced allegations of professional misconduct after being convicted of criminal offences for unauthorized computer access and mischief to data following a workplace dispute.

He also falsified employment dates and references on multiple job applications.

The Member admitted to the allegations via an Agreed Statement of Facts.

The Discipline Committee found the Member committed professional misconduct and accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand, a four-month suspension, and remedial terms including meetings with a nursing expert and employer notification.