Tim Hannigan

The Grievance Settlement Board directed the union to provide the employer with full particulars of its claims by May 16, 2014.

The employer agreed to provide further information upon receipt of the particulars.

The Board also scheduled separate hearing dates for the two grievances.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the Union to provide full written particulars of eight grievances filed by the grievor.

The Union was directed to specify whether the grievances raised allegations different from those decided in a previous award, and if so, why they were not raised earlier.

The Employer was ordered to advise of any preliminary objections and respond to disclosure requests.

The union brought a motion seeking additional remedial orders to enforce a previous Grievance Settlement Board decision that declared court reporters performing transcription work were bargaining unit employees.

The union alleged the employer failed to comply with the prior orders and sought orders compelling individual managers to comply or appear before the Board to explain the non-compliance.

The employer objected on jurisdictional grounds.

The Board dismissed the motion, holding that it lacks statutory authority to enforce its own orders.

Under section 48(19) of the Labour Relations Act, enforcement of arbitration decisions is exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Superior Court of Justice, and the Board's retention of jurisdiction for implementation disputes did not empower it to enforce its final and binding orders.

The parties sought clarification on three remedial issues following a prior decision finding that the Employer improperly treated Court Reporters as independent contractors for transcript production.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that while transcript production expenses should be factored into the make-whole remedy, the calculation must be done on an overall rather than year-by-year basis.

The Board further ordered the Employer to pay unremitted union dues plus interest, applying the remedy typical for contracting-out violations.

Finally, regarding pension losses, the Board held that the employee is responsible for her share of missed contributions, but the Employer must pay its share plus any interest penalties assessed by the pension trust.

The Employer applied to consolidate five grievances involving two correctional officers, Upson and Kirkwood, who were involved in a physical altercation at work.

Kirkwood grieved his discharge for the assault, while Upson filed four grievances relating to the assault, overtime, and other workplace issues.

The Union opposed consolidation.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that three of Upson's grievances lacked sufficient commonality of fact or law with the assault incident and ordered them scheduled separately.

However, the Board ordered that Kirkwood's discharge grievance and Upson's grievance directly relating to the assault be heard together, as they shared a central factual nexus, though they were not formally consolidated due to the grievors' opposing interests.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued a procedural order regarding 11 grievances filed by the same grievor concerning workplace accommodation.

With the consent of the parties, the Vice-Chair ordered that the hearing be divided into three distinct parts: first, determining what accommodation is required for the future; second, determining liability for past events; and third, determining remedy if necessary.

The Board also issued production orders requiring the union to provide medical reports and particulars of the requested future accommodation, and the employer to advise if it intends to request an independent medical examination.

The union filed a grievance alleging the employer unreasonably exercised its management rights by unilaterally adjusting the official range of rates for the Adjustment Advisory position, effectively downgrading the employees to a lower-paying classification.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the grievance for lack of jurisdiction.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that the true nature of the grievance was a classification dispute.

Under sections 51 and 52 of the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act, the Board is expressly deprived of jurisdiction to require a change in an employee's classification.

Accordingly, the employer's motion was granted and the grievance was dismissed.

The grievor, a fixed-term Correctional Officer, was terminated for allegedly smuggling alcohol and cigarettes to an inmate and lying to the investigator.

The employer relied on testimony from an inmate and the discovery of an empty vodka bottle in the grievor's locker.

The grievor denied the smuggling allegations and claimed the bottle had been in his locker for over a year and a half.

The arbitrator found that the grievor's timeline regarding the bottle was impossible based on its manufacturing date, concluding that the grievor lied on a highly material fact during the investigation and at arbitration.

The grievance was dismissed, as the dishonesty alone justified termination.

Following a finding that the grievor was terminated without just cause, the parties could not agree on the calculation of damages in lieu of reinstatement.

The grievor argued that damages should be calculated at a full-time rate, as she would have become full-time had she not been terminated, and at a higher wage rate that took effect shortly after her termination.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed both arguments, holding that because the grievor declined reinstatement, she was not entitled to back pay or to be treated as if she had continued working.

Damages in lieu of reinstatement were to be calculated based on her casual rate and the wage rate in effect at the time of her termination.

The Board also found it lacked jurisdiction over Employment Insurance issues.

The union filed a policy grievance alleging the employer violated the collective agreement by failing to apply it to court reporters who prepare and certify transcripts.

The employer conceded that the work was bargaining unit work and that it was in violation of the collective agreement by treating the reporters as independent contractors, but argued the Board lacked jurisdiction to order compliance because it intended to contract out the work.

The Board rejected the employer's arguments based on res judicata and management rights, finding it had the statutory mandate to provide a final and binding settlement to the dispute.

The Board ordered the employer to cease its violation and immediately apply the collective agreement to the court reporters performing the transcript work.

The union sought interim relief directing the employer to apply the collective agreement to court reporters performing transcript preparation and certification work.

The employer conceded liability, acknowledging it was in violation of the collective agreement, but contested the Board's jurisdiction to order the requested remedy.

The Grievance Settlement Board denied the application for interim relief, reasoning that since liability was conceded and a hearing on the employer's preliminary motions regarding remedy was imminent, an interim order would effectively be a final cease and desist order rather than true interim relief pending a determination on the merits.

The Employer requested particulars and disclosure from the Union in relation to multiple grievances.

Following a hearing, the Grievance Settlement Board ordered the Union to provide the requested information within 60 days.

The Board noted that failure to comply could result in the Employer bringing a motion to dismiss the grievances.

The Grievance Settlement Board determined the remedial consequences of its prior finding that the preparation and certification of transcripts by court reporters is bargaining unit work.

The Board established a graduated page-per-hour rate for transcript production based on experience.

It dismissed the union's claim that the grievor should have been converted to full-time status, finding the employer had not determined a continuing need for full-time work.

The Board also held that the grievor was generally not entitled to premium payments like overtime or shift premiums unless specifically authorized.

Finally, the Board ruled that transcript income earned under regulation must be offset against any wages owed, but rejected the employer's argument that it should benefit from the grievor's tax savings as an independent contractor.

The Union filed grievances alleging the Employer violated the collective agreement by failing to provide incentive pay to staff divested through the sales tax reform project, similar to what was provided during a previous corporate tax divestment.

The Employer brought a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, arguing there was no collective agreement provision requiring such incentive pay.

The Grievance Settlement Board agreed with the Employer, finding the claim was a 'me too' argument without a link to a substantial right under the collective agreement, and dismissed the grievances for lack of jurisdiction.

In a grievance arbitration, the Employer requested the production of transcript invoices and tax returns of Court Reporters whom the Union intended to call as reply witnesses.

The Employer sought the documents to assess the witnesses' experience and speed in preparing transcripts, and to potentially challenge their credibility by comparing reported income to invoices.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the production of the transcript invoices, finding them arguably relevant to the witnesses' experience and transcript production volume.

However, the Board denied the request for tax returns, characterizing it as an improper fishing expedition barred by the collateral fact rule.

The Union filed a grievance alleging the Employer violated Appendix COR-7 of the collective agreement by excluding time spent on approved leaves of absence and acting assignments from the calculation of 'hours worked' for the Absenteeism Target Incentive.

The Union argued the lump sum payment was effectively a retroactive wage increase and that excluding leave time penalized employees and violated the Employment Standards Act and Human Rights Code.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding the clear language of the agreement provided a lump sum payment based on actual 'hours worked' to reward attendance, not a wage increase, and that prorating a work-driven benefit based on actual attendance did not constitute a reprisal or discrimination.

The grievor was previously found to have been terminated without just cause, but her claims of harassment and discrimination were dismissed.

As a remedy, the grievor declined reinstatement and sought both back pay and damages in lieu of reinstatement, along with punitive damages and damages for mental distress.

The arbitrator held that awarding both back pay and damages in lieu of reinstatement is conceptually inconsistent where the employment relationship has not been destroyed by the employer's bad faith.

The arbitrator awarded damages in lieu of reinstatement calculated at 1.25 months' wages per year of service for seven years, plus a 15% top-up for loss of benefits, and statutory entitlements under the Employment Standards Act.

Claims for punitive damages and mental distress were dismissed as the employer's conduct did not amount to bad faith and the secondary effects of termination are not compensable.

The grievor, a casual Customer Service Representative at the LCBO, was discharged for allegedly intentionally allowing customers to leave with unpaid products and giving away a value-add item without authorization.

She grieved the discharge and also alleged age discrimination and harassment by her store manager.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the discrimination and harassment claims, finding the employer's requests for medical information were legitimate accommodation efforts and the manager's actions were work-related disagreements.

However, the Board upheld the grievance against the discharge, finding the employer failed to prove by clear and cogent evidence that the grievor had a dishonest intention to commit theft.

The failure to scan items was deemed careless cashiering, and the grievor acted under a mistaken but honestly held 'colour of right' when distributing the value-add item.

The grievance was allowed on the merits, with remedy deferred.

The Employer moved to dismiss over fifty grievances filed by Court Reporters alleging non-compliance with the collective agreement regarding transcript production.

The Employer argued these grievances raised the same issues currently being addressed in the remedial phase of a prior Board decision (Hunt et al.).

The Vice-Chair denied the motion, finding that the prior decision did not give the Board continuing jurisdiction to ensure compliance with the collective agreement, and that the new grievances raised new matters arising from the Employer's ongoing failure to comply with the prior decision.

The Employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss union grievances regarding the calculation of absenteeism target incentives, arguing that a January 2010 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) precluded such challenges.

The MOA prevented the Union from challenging the Employer's 2009 data and attendance targets.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the motion, finding that while the MOA settled the attendance target percentage, it did not contain clear language waiving the Union's right to grieve the Employer's calculation of individual 'hours worked' for the purpose of applying the incentive payment.