Barry Stephens

The union grieved that the employer violated the collective agreement by starting the school year for seasonal Residential Counsellors on September 3, 2015, instead of September 1.

The parties proceeded by way of an agreed statement of facts.

The union argued that Appendix UN6 mandated a September 1 start date.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that Appendix UN6 does not apply to seasonal employees as it is not listed in Article 32.31 of the collective agreement.

Furthermore, the Board held that the union's interpretation of the language as mandatory was inconsistent with the historical application and the flexibility inherent in the provision.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued a written decision confirming an earlier oral ruling that granted parts of the grievances and dismissed others.

The Board remained seized with respect to the interpretation and implementation of the order.

The union and employer were engaged in a grievance arbitration before the Grievance Settlement Board concerning the death of an inmate.

A media representative attended the hearing.

The Vice-Chair was advised of a publication ban issued by the criminal court under s. 486(1) of the Criminal Code regarding related criminal proceedings involving one of the grievors.

To avoid undermining the court-ordered ban and prejudicing the criminal proceedings, the Vice-Chair ordered a ban on the publication of any evidence presented in the arbitration hearing for the duration of the criminal trial publication ban.

At the outset of a grievance arbitration hearing, the union advised that a court-ordered publication ban was in place for related criminal proceedings.

Noting the presence of a media representative, the Vice-Chair ordered an interim publication ban on any evidence presented at the hearing to avoid undermining the court order and potentially prejudicing the criminal proceedings.

The interim ban remains in effect pending review of the terms of the court-ordered ban.

The employer requested an adjournment of a scheduled hearing because its counsel was taking a new position and the file needed to be transferred to new counsel.

The union opposed the adjournment, citing concerns about delay.

The Vice-Chair granted the adjournment, finding that requiring the employer to begin calling evidence with one counsel and continue with another would place the new counsel at a disadvantage and compromise fair procedure.

The Grievance Settlement Board heard two procedural issues regarding the termination of five employees at the Elgin Middlesex Detention Centre.

The Vice-Chair confirmed oral rulings consolidating two related grievances involving lesser discipline with the termination grievances.

The Vice-Chair also ordered that document disclosure be subject to strict confidentiality conditions, limiting use to the litigation and requiring the return of documents at the conclusion of the proceedings.

The union filed grievances on behalf of over one hundred grievors alleging improper balancing of hours, including alleged violations of Appendix COR1 Schedule A. The employer raised a preliminary objection that the Schedule A issues should be dismissed because none of the grievors worked in a designated Schedule A position.

The Vice-Chair upheld the preliminary objection and dismissed those specific allegations.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the union's harassment and discrimination grievances on the basis that there was no prima facie case.

The employer argued the grievances related to letters written to the grievors about conforming with an order, while the union alleged the letters were part of an overall series of events that must be viewed in context.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the employer's preliminary motion, allowing the grievances to proceed.

The union filed grievances on behalf of upwards of one hundred grievors alleging improper balancing of hours.

To streamline the process, the Vice-Chair issued an interim procedural order requiring the union to obtain full particulars from each grievor by a specified deadline, failing which the grievance would be deemed withdrawn.

The order also set deadlines for providing the particulars to the employer and scheduled further hearings to address specific issues.

The union filed grievances alleging that the employer violated the collective agreement and the Occupational Health and Safety Act by imposing unjust discipline and engaging in workplace harassment during a staff meeting.

The meeting addressed employee misconduct, including sleeping on night shifts and abusing meal breaks.

The employer reminded nursing staff of their professional obligations to the College of Nurses of Ontario after some employees resisted the employer's directives.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievances, finding that the employer's comments were a reasonable and restrained response to inappropriate employee behaviour and did not constitute discipline, harassment, or intimidation.

The union grieved the employer's failure to distribute overtime equally among Electronic Supervision Resource Officers (ESROs) and Monitoring Centre Officers (MCOs), alleging a breach of the collective agreement.

The employer had centralized shift work and overtime at a new monitoring centre in Mississauga, while ESROs continued to work day shifts at various local probation offices.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that the collective agreement only required fair distribution of overtime within a 'local workplace.' Because the ESROs and MCOs worked in different physical locations, they did not constitute a single local workplace, and the employer's reorganization of work was a valid exercise of management rights.

The grievors, group sales representatives for Ontario Place Corporation, received surplus notices and filed grievances alleging bad faith and discrimination.

The employer brought a preliminary motion arguing that the grievances disclosed no prima facie case.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the employer's motion, finding that the facts asserted, if true, were capable of establishing the alleged violations, and directed that the hearing continue on the merits.

The union filed a grievance regarding the denial of a mileage claim for the grievor's use of his personal vehicle to attend a meeting.

The grievor had informed his manager by email of his intention to use his personal vehicle, and the manager responded without raising concerns or stipulating that mileage could not be claimed.

The employer argued that specific advance approval was required.

The arbitrator upheld the grievance, finding that the manager's response amounted to approval, and ordered the employer to compensate the grievor for the mileage.

The grievor claimed she was unfairly treated when her entire overtime shift was cancelled after she called in a day early to advise she would be two hours late.

She alleged another employee was accommodated when calling in late just prior to a shift.

The employer argued that employees do not have a right to accept only part of an overtime shift and that responding to unavoidable lateness is a matter of employer discretion.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance following an expedited mediation-arbitration protocol.

The union filed a grievance alleging a poisoned work environment after a coworker made a derogatory comment about the grievor.

The employer investigated the incident, and the coworker acknowledged the inappropriateness of the comment and offered an apology.

The grievor declined both the apology and the employer's offer of mediation.

The Vice-Chair awarded the grievor one day of pay in lieu, noting the incident was part of a difficult long-term relationship and cautioning that future failure to participate in mediation could impact further compensation claims.

The grievor requested an additional five days of compassionate leave to deal with issues related to the settlement of her mother's estate, having already been granted three days of bereavement leave and three days of compassionate leave.

The employer denied the request on the basis that there was no urgent or compelling need to resolve the estate issues on the requested days.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding no violation of the collective agreement.

The union filed grievances alleging that the employer improperly pro-rated vacation usage when employees took partial vacation days.

The matter proceeded via an Expedited Mediation-Arbitration Protocol.

The Vice-Chair found no violation, concluding that the employer's method of pro-rating was consistent with the collective agreement and policies, despite confusion caused by a message on employee pay stubs.

The main issue was dismissed, but the union was granted 30 days to raise any individual calculation errors with the employer.

The grievor filed a grievance alleging she had not been given proper service credit when she was rehired by the Ministry in 2006, after a previous severance of employment.

The employer argued that because her employment had been severed, she had no collective agreement rights to service credits, making the decision an exercise of management discretion.

The Vice-Chair agreed and dismissed the grievance.

The employer requested an adjournment of a scheduled hearing regarding the grievor's workplace accommodation because the grievor was beginning a year-long secondment to a different ministry.

The union opposed the adjournment.

The Vice-Chair granted the adjournment, finding that discussions regarding accommodation would not be fruitful given the grievor's delayed return to the workplace, and ordered the hearing to be rescheduled prior to the end of the secondment.

The union filed grievances alleging that the employer's reorganization and reclassification of employees created a poisoned work environment due to misleading communications.

The employer raised preliminary objections, arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction over classification grievances under s. 51 of the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act, and that the matter was already settled by a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA).

The Grievance Settlement Board upheld the preliminary objections, finding it had no jurisdiction to remedy classification grievances and that the parties had already reached a binding agreement regarding the reorganization's impact.

The grievances were dismissed.