Tim Hannigan

The Union requested an extension of time to file particulars, citing the grievor's illness, though it could not provide specific details of the illness or explain the delay.

The Grievance Settlement Board granted a two-week extension to September 11, 2009, ordering that the grievance would be dismissed if particulars were not provided by that date, subject to the Union's right to show cause for reinstatement based on exceptional circumstances.

The union filed a grievance claiming that a water bomber pilot was entitled to call back pay under the collective agreement when he was required to work prior to his scheduled start time.

The employer argued that the specific terms of the CL-415 Pilot/Co-Pilot Agreement, which amended the collective agreement, disentitled pilots to call back pay.

The arbitrator found that the plain language of the Pilot Agreement provided that all hours worked on a regular workday, including those before the normal start time, were to be accumulated at straight time and credited towards the annual work requirement.

The grievance was dismissed.

The Union brought a motion to change the venue of the grievance hearing from Toronto to the Niagara area, citing the grievor's medical condition and the inconvenience of bus travel.

The Employer opposed the motion, noting that the grievor refused to disclose the medical note supporting her request.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the motion, finding that the balance of convenience favoured Toronto and that the grievor's refusal to provide medical evidence to the Employer and the Board rendered her request for medical accommodation a nullity.

In a grievance regarding the Employer's alleged failure to accommodate, a teleconference was held to address preliminary issues concerning an upcoming Independent Medical Evaluation (IME).

The Vice-Chair ruled that the grievor's general practitioner could provide written documentation to the IME but could not engage in verbal consultation.

The Vice-Chair also ordered that the IME report be kept in a sealed envelope with restricted access by the Employer, and that the IME be instructed to limit the report's contents to medical history relevant to the grievor's neurological condition and need for accommodation.

The union grieved the dismissal of an employee, alleging unjust dismissal tainted by human rights violations.

The grievor had also filed a complaint with the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

The union requested that the arbitration be deferred pending the Commission's hearing, while the employer argued the arbitration should proceed.

The Vice-Chair held that the Grievance Settlement Board has concurrent jurisdiction to interpret and apply the Human Rights Code alongside the Commission.

Because the Commission had not yet scheduled a hearing, the Vice-Chair declined to defer the matter and directed that the arbitration proceed in the ordinary course.

The union filed grievances on behalf of correctional officers claiming they were improperly placed at the first step of the pay range upon being rehired, unlike other rehired officers.

Following a prior decision confirming jurisdiction, the Grievance Settlement Board held a conference call to discuss procedural issues.

The Vice-Chair directed the union to provide written statements detailing each grievor's employment history and the basis for their claim.

The employer was directed to respond with reasons for the placement and information regarding the comparator group.

The scheduled hearing dates were adjourned to May 2008.

The Grievance Settlement Board held a teleconference to consider an adjournment of a scheduled hearing.

The grievor had filed a complaint with the Ontario Human Rights Commission that partially overlapped with the issues before the Board.

The Board ordered the hearing scheduled for January 21, 2008, adjourned pending the imminent release of a ruling from the Commission regarding a potential stay of its proceedings.

The Union filed grievances on behalf of Correctional Officers who were rehired after a separation of more than six months and placed at the first step of the CO2 salary range.

The Union alleged that other similarly situated rehired employees were placed at higher steps, and that the Employer exercised its discretion unreasonably, arbitrarily, or in bad faith.

The Employer raised a preliminary objection that the grievances were inarbitrable because they did not allege a violation of the collective agreement and relied on an external rehire policy.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the preliminary objection, finding that the essential character of the dispute concerned the placement of the grievors within the salary range of the CO2 classification, which is a matter of administering the pay provisions of the collective agreement.

The Board concluded it had jurisdiction to hear the grievances on their merits.

The union filed 193 individual grievances alleging that the employer violated the collective agreement by providing unequal pay for the same work when it temporarily reassigned six correctional officers to other facilities and paid them additional travel compensation.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievances.

On a preliminary objection, the Board held that the individual grievors lacked standing to grieve the compensation paid to other employees because they were paid in accordance with the collective agreement and were not directly affected.

On the merits, the Board found that the temporary reassignments did not constitute vacancies requiring posting under Article 6 of the collective agreement, even though some assignments were extended beyond the original three-month period.

The parties reached a memorandum of agreement regarding the application of holiday provisions to part-time employees under the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued a consent order incorporating the memorandum of agreement, which clarified that the holiday provisions in section 58 of Regulation 977 of the Public Service Act do not apply to part-time employees, and that a previous decision of the Board shall not be relied upon as precedent.

The applicant, a paramedic, sought judicial review of a Medical Director's decision to decertify her following complaints about patient care.

The Divisional Court found it had jurisdiction to review the decision because the Medical Director was exercising a statutory power and performing a public function.

However, the court dismissed the application, concluding that the applicant was afforded procedural fairness, the decision was reasonable and supported by evidence, and there was no reasonable apprehension of bias.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of part-time employees who were denied holiday pay when Christmas, Boxing Day, and New Year's Day fell on weekends and were observed on the following Mondays and Tuesdays.

The employer argued that the collective agreement did not provide for moving holidays for part-time employees.

The arbitrator found no conflict between the collective agreement and Regulation 977 of the Public Service Act, which requires holidays falling on a weekend to be moved to the next regular workday.

The grievance was allowed, and the employer was ordered to compensate the grievors for the lost holiday pay.

The union grieved the termination of the grievor's employment.

The parties agreed to proceed under the mediation/arbitration procedure set out in the collective agreement and requested an order without written reasons.

The arbitrator ordered the grievor reinstated effective the date of termination, after which the parties reached an agreement on all outstanding matters.

The grievor previously signed Minutes of Settlement waiving his employment rights under Article 20 of the collective agreement in exchange for a surplus package.

Years later, after returning from long-term disability, the Employer mistakenly sent him a letter offering him bumping rights and a potential job relocation.

The Employer quickly rescinded the offer upon realizing the error.

The Union argued the Employer was estopped from relying on the prior settlement due to the mistaken offer.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding the mistaken letter was not intended to alter the legal relationship and the grievor had not relied on it to his detriment.

The Union filed grievances alleging the Employer failed to inform employees about their opportunity to buy back pension service during the 1989-1991 window, or provided incorrect information.

The Employer moved to dismiss the grievances, arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction because pension matters were not governed by the collective agreement.

The Grievance Settlement Board agreed, finding that the essential character of the dispute involved statutory pension rights and agreements outside the collective agreement.

As the dispute did not arise from the interpretation, application, administration, or alleged contravention of the collective agreement, the grievances were deemed inarbitrable and dismissed.

The employer requested an adjournment of scheduled hearing dates pending the potential conversion of the grievor's position, which would resolve a significant aspect of the grievances.

The Grievance Settlement Board granted the adjournment, noting that the conversion issue was likely to be resolved without litigation and that the employer's representative was no longer available for the scheduled dates.

The Board directed the employer to advise the union of the conversion results by a specified date and ordered the parties to schedule a mediation day for any remaining issues.

The employer requested an adjournment of scheduled hearing dates because its representative was leaving the Ministry and no replacement was available.

The union opposed the request.

The Vice-Chair directed the employer to provide information regarding the grievor's claim for convertible service and the name of the new representative by July 8, 2003, before ruling on the adjournment request.

The grievor, a registered nurse, requested one day of special or compassionate leave to sleep before attending her cousin's funeral, as she was scheduled to work the night shift prior.

The employer denied the request, determining that the circumstances were not extraordinary and that there was sufficient time between her scheduled shift and the funeral.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the employer's decision-making process was reasonable, considered the relevant facts, and appropriately applied the criteria set out in its policy for handling special and compassionate leave requests.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board heard a consolidated application for certification and a related employer application under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Board issued procedural orders directing the responding employers to file a response and produce material documents regarding the section 1(4) application.

The Board also ordered the applicant union to provide full particulars of its position concerning the effect of recent Minutes of Settlement on the applications.

The matters were scheduled for continuation of hearing.

The applicants filed a duty of fair representation complaint against the union regarding the recognition of their past seniority as provincial government employees following a transfer to the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton.

During a scheduled consultation, the parties reached Minutes of Settlement agreeing to refer the seniority issue to arbitration.

The Board directed the parties to comply with the terms of the settlement and remained seized of the matter.