Tim Hannigan

The Union filed grievances alleging that the Employer violated the collective agreement by failing to pay absenteeism target incentives to fixed-term correctional officers.

The Employer brought a motion to dismiss the grievances on the basis that they did not disclose a prima facie case.

The Grievance Settlement Board granted the motion, finding that the clear language of the collective agreement restricted the incentive payments to 'regular' employees and explicitly excluded fixed-term employees.

The grievances were dismissed.

The union filed a grievance alleging that a pilot engaged in firefighting duties was entitled to compensating time off under the collective agreement for hours worked beyond 7.25 hours.

The employer argued that the collective agreement provision did not apply due to a separate Float Agreement governing pilots, and alternatively, that the grievor did not have a 'regularly scheduled work day' as required by the provision.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the Float Agreement specifically addressed overtime and compensating leave, thereby precluding the application of the collective agreement provision.

Furthermore, the Board held that due to the irregular nature of the pilot's hours, he did not have a regularly scheduled work day.

Eleven correctional officers filed grievances alleging the Employer improperly placed them at the first pay level of their classification upon rehire.

The grievors argued that other rehired officers were placed at a higher level on the grid.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the comparator officers had continued to perform correctional duties at a private facility during their separation, whereas the grievors had not.

The Board concluded the Employer properly exercised its discretion in placing the grievors at the entry level and dismissed the grievances.

The grievor, a Correctional Officer, was discharged for using excessive force on an inmate and submitting false reports.

The incident involved a 28-second cell entry where the grievor allegedly punched the inmate.

Despite conflicting testimony and the grievor's denial, video evidence and the testimony of another officer, who overcame the 'code of silence' to report the assault, supported the employer's allegations.

The arbitrator found the grievor committed a serious offence without justification and continued to obscure his misconduct.

The grievance was dismissed and the termination upheld.

The Employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss a grievance filed by a Correctional Officer on the basis of res judicata, relying on a prior decision that dismissed an earlier grievance filed by the same grievor.

The earlier grievance concerned the grievor's date of re-hire and the application of the Re-Hire Policy, while the current grievance alleged discriminatory treatment regarding her rate of pay upon re-hire compared to other similarly situated employees.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the Employer's motion, finding that the facts and legal issues in the two grievances were distinct, and therefore the conditions for res judicata were not met.

The Employer brought a motion to strike certain claims from the Union's particulars in a harassment and unjust dismissal grievance.

The Employer argued that the claims pertained to matters that had been previously grieved and resolved through Memorandums of Settlement.

The Union sought to introduce the evidence to establish a pattern of harassment and bad faith by the Employer.

The Grievance Settlement Board granted the motion to strike, holding that evidence of fully and finally resolved matters is generally inadmissible to establish a pattern of harassment, absent exceptional circumstances akin to bad faith in the settlement process.

The Union was permitted to lead evidence that the prior settlements were breached, as well as evidence of matters not covered by the settlements.

The grievor, an Income Support Specialist with 25 years of service, was terminated for insubordination after failing to provide requested medical information and refusing to attend an independent medical examination (IME) to substantiate her absence due to 'workplace stress and anxiety'.

The grievor alleged the employer's actions were discriminatory and a reprisal for past grievances and a human rights complaint.

The Grievance Settlement Board found the employer's requests for medical information were reasonable and the grievor's refusal to cooperate constituted culpable conduct.

Finding no evidence of discrimination or reprisal, the Board upheld the termination and dismissed the grievance.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued a brief decision noting the parties' agreement that there is an obligation to consider the accommodation needs of surplus employees in the redeployment process.

The parties agreed to refer the implementation of this obligation to the Central Employee Relations Committee (CERC) and/or its subcommittees to be dealt with on a substantive basis within 18 months.

The grievor failed to attend the continuation of his grievance arbitration hearing, having also missed the previously scheduled date.

The union requested an adjournment, citing the grievor's frustration with the process and his demand that all managers and union officials involved be present.

The employer opposed the adjournment and moved to dismiss the grievance.

The Grievance Settlement Board denied the adjournment request, noting the grievor's lack of respect for the process and failure to provide a reasonable justification for his absence.

As the union could not proceed without the grievor's evidence, the grievance was dismissed.

The grievor failed to appear at the scheduled continuation of the hearing.

The union requested an adjournment, which the employer agreed to on the condition that it be peremptory on the grievor's attendance at the next scheduled hearing day.

The Board granted the adjournment, noting that the employer reserved the right to require a reasonable justification for the non-attendance and could move to dismiss the case if the grievor failed to appear again.

In the remedial stage of a grievance concerning whether transcript preparation is bargaining unit work, the Employer brought a motion to compel the production of a grievor's income tax returns and supporting documents from 2003 to 2009.

The Union opposed the motion, arguing the documents were not arguably relevant and citing privacy interests under the Income Tax Act.

The Grievance Settlement Board granted the motion, finding that the tax documents were arguably relevant to the Employer's argument that transcript income and other earnings should be offset against claimed losses.

The Board ordered production subject to the redaction of personal information unrelated to income and expenses.

In a multi-faceted grievance arbitration, the employer sought particulars of the claims the grievor sought to advance.

The Grievance Settlement Board directed the union to provide full particulars of all aspects of the grievor's claim, excluding matters already covered by a WDHP investigation.

The union was also directed to provide copies of all documents or materials upon which it intended to rely.

The Employer moved to dismiss the grievances, arguing the Union failed to comply with a Board order to provide particulars regarding retrospective remedial claims for court reporters.

The Union acknowledged the particulars were incomplete but argued it made best efforts and faced difficulties gathering historical data for hundreds of employees.

The Board denied the motion to dismiss, finding no abuse of process or deliberate flouting of the order.

The Board noted the grievances had already been found to have merit and the matter was at the remedial stage, making dismissal an extraordinary and inappropriate remedy in these circumstances.

The Union was granted an additional six months to complete the particulars.

The union filed a group grievance alleging that the employer violated the collective agreement by failing to pay acting pay to Investigators (FO5) who were assigned files with a tax value exceeding $25,000, which the union claimed were duties of the higher-classified Senior Investigator (AFA20) position.

At the conclusion of the union's case, the employer brought a non-suit motion.

The Grievance Settlement Board applied the 'sufficient evidence' standard and upheld the non-suit motion, finding that the union failed to establish a prima facie case.

The Board concluded that the work performed was not outside the scope of the FO5 position and, even if it were, the grievors did not perform all the core or significant duties of the AFA20 position, such as leadership, training, and mentoring.

The Union requested an extension of time to provide particulars ordered in a previous decision, citing the difficulty of gathering information for over 400 employees.

The Employer opposed the request.

The Grievance Settlement Board granted the extension, finding that the Union provided valid reasons and noting that the original timeline for compliance was relatively brief.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the Union to provide full particulars related to its claims for retrospective relief regarding transcript production within 45 days.

The particulars must include the identity of each individual, dates and times of work performed, and how the Collective Agreement applies to each claim.

The Board also directed the Union to advise the Employer if the Union Dues document does not identify employees' classifications, with a teleconference to be convened for any disclosure disputes.

The Employer raised a preliminary objection regarding the Grievance Settlement Board's jurisdiction to issue prospective remedies following a previous decision that found transcript preparation to be bargaining unit work.

The Union argued the issue was already decided in a prior ruling and that the Board had broad remedial authority to prevent the Employer from unilaterally implementing a new transcript production model.

The Board held that the prior ruling did not decide the jurisdictional issue.

Furthermore, the Board concluded it lacked jurisdiction to order prospective relief because the Employer's new proposed regulatory model raised new facts and issues not encompassed in the original grievances, and any challenge to it must be brought through a new grievance.

During a hearing on a motion to intervene, the employer requested permission to disseminate a memorandum and proceed with stakeholder consultation, arguing that the document's possession by a third-party coalition violated a previous Board order.

The union opposed the request.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the employer's request, clarifying that the earlier decision did not prevent the dissemination of the memorandum itself, but rather precluded the employer from unilaterally initiating the implementation process outlined within it.

The Board held that the consultation process constituted part of implementation and remained prohibited by the prior cease and desist order.

The Coalition of Concerned Court Reporters of Ontario sought leave to intervene in the remedial stage of an arbitration concerning the preparation and certification of transcripts by Court Reporters.

The Grievance Settlement Board denied the motion, finding that the Union is the exclusive representative of the Court Reporters and that no exceptional circumstances existed to justify granting third-party standing to a group of bargaining unit members who may disagree with the Union's position.

The employer requested an order directing a witness to attend the hearing after he failed to appear despite being served with a summons.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued an order directing the witness to attend the scheduled hearing dates until his attendance is no longer required.