Barry Stephens

The grievor sought compassionate leave for a domestic emergency after her shower door shattered due to plumbing work.

The employer denied the request, arguing the situation did not require immediate attention as no further damage was occurring.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding the employer's decision reasonable because the circumstances did not pose an imminent risk of greater harm that would make it unreasonable to expect the employee to attend work.

The union filed grievances on behalf of fixed term employees who were sent home mid-shift, alleging this violated the overtime protocol.

The union argued the protocol only permitted the cancellation of complete shifts.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievances, finding no language in the protocol restricting the employer to cancelling only full shifts.

The union filed a grievance claiming the grievor should have been offered a shift on April 29, 2011, and sought 8 hours of pay.

The Grievance Settlement Board heard the matter under Article 22.16 of the collective agreement.

The Board upheld the grievance in part, awarding the grievor four hours of pay.

The grievor alleged that improper comments referencing her age were made to her during an Escort Training session in April 2008, and that the employer failed to process the grievance within appropriate time limits.

The Grievance Settlement Board upheld the grievance in part, awarding the grievor $1,000 in damages for breach of her human rights arising from the original event.

The grievor, who was pregnant, provided a medical certificate restricting her work hours to avoid the risk of slipping and falling.

The employer agreed to an accommodation plan but delayed its implementation until after the holiday season.

During the delay, the grievor slipped on ice while working an evening shift and sustained an injury.

The union grieved the delay as a breach of the duty to accommodate.

The arbitrator allowed the grievance, finding that the grievor would not have been working the shift if the plan had been implemented immediately, and there was no evidence of undue hardship.

The grievor was awarded $2,500 in damages.

The grievor alleged that he was not paid for all actual hours worked while in receipt of WSIB benefits in 2005-06.

The parties agreed to review the grievor's actual pay against the hours attributed with the employer's payroll advisor to determine if he was compensated appropriately.

The matter was adjourned to allow the parties to conduct this review, with any outstanding issues to be brought back before the Vice-Chair at a later date.

The union alleged that the employer breached a mediated settlement agreement by unilaterally terminating an arrangement that provided the grievor with alternating weekends off to assist with child care issues.

The employer argued that family accommodation should be temporary and that the grievor failed to find alternative child care over a two-year period.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that the agreement contained no explicit time limit and that the employer could not unilaterally abrogate the settlement without seeking a prior ruling or demonstrating a change in circumstances.

The employer was ordered to reinstate the accommodation and compensate the grievor for any resulting unpaid leaves of absence.

The union filed a grievance claiming four hours of travel time for a member attending Joint Occupational Health and Safety Committee meetings.

The employer argued that travel was not authorized due to the proximity of the meeting location to the grievor's workplace.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the travel was not authorized within the meaning of the collective agreement.

The union filed a grievance claiming assignment and pay for a position that was not filled on the Victoria Day holiday in 2010.

The employer argued it had no requirement to fill the position for that shift and exercised its discretion not to staff it.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding no rights arise when the employer exercises its discretion not to staff a position.

The union filed multiple grievances on behalf of the grievor concerning various issues, including sick leave credits, staffing, overtime opportunities, work schedules, union activities, discipline for insubordination following a work refusal, and denial of compassionate leave.

The Grievance Settlement Board reviewed the submissions under an Expedited Mediation-Arbitration Protocol.

The Vice-Chair dismissed all of the grievances, finding no violation of the collective agreement by the employer in any of the matters raised.

The union filed grievances challenging the employer's practice of assigning shifts to unclassified employees where the shift takes the employee over the 40-hour limit, resulting in part of the shift becoming overtime.

The union argued the employer must split the shift, assigning only the hours up to 40 to the unclassified employee and offering the remainder to classified employees as an overtime opportunity.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievances, finding the employer's practice consistent with the collective agreement.

The union grieved the discipline imposed on several employees for an alleged abuse of sick leave that occurred after another employee was disciplined.

The employer characterized the incident as a concerted withdrawal of service.

The arbitrator found that while a concerted effort to use withdrawal of service to pressure the employer is a serious breach of conduct, the parties had made joint efforts to counsel and warn employees since a similar prior incident.

The grievances were upheld in part, and the discipline for each grievor was reduced by one level.

The union grieved the discipline imposed on several employees for alleged abuse of sick leave, which the employer characterized as a concerted withdrawal of service following the disciplining of another employee.

The matter proceeded via an Expedited Mediation-Arbitration Protocol.

The Vice-Chair found that while a concerted withdrawal of service is a serious breach of conduct, the incident was the first of its kind at the institution and had limited impact.

The discipline for all grievors was reduced to a written warning, with compensation ordered for any grievor who had been suspended.

The union filed three grievances on behalf of the grievor.

The first challenged the employer's practice of printing the grievor's name on Polaris system abstracts, which the Board dismissed as it was founded solely on the management rights clause and did not breach the collective agreement.

The second alleged improper denial of union leave on December 24, 2008, which the Board dismissed because the employer reasonably concluded it was not possible to adhere to the schedule due to staffing shortages.

The third alleged improper denial of union leave for voting on January 30, 2009, which the Board dismissed, finding the employer acted reasonably by granting three of four requested days and offering partial leave for the fourth.

The union filed a grievance claiming statutory holiday premium pay for the grievor for Thanksgiving Day.

The employer denied the premium pay because the grievor failed to attend work for her two prior shifts and provided an untimely medical note, thereby failing to meet the attendance requirements in the collective agreement.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding the grievor was disentitled to the premium pay.

The union filed a grievance after a manager falsely accused the grievor, a correctional officer, of using excessive force against an inmate in front of colleagues.

The employer accepted the grievance and offered two days of vacation as compensation, but the grievor sought greater compensation for damage to his reputation.

Following an expedited mediation-arbitration process, the Vice-Chair upheld the employer's acceptance of the grievance and awarded the grievor two days of vacation.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of a correctional officer claiming the right to opt out of mandatory escort training pursuant to a July 11, 2004 protocol.

The protocol provided a one-time opportunity to opt out for employees who were classified as of that date.

The grievor argued she was entitled to this right because she had previously been a classified officer or because the right applied retroactively when her facility was transferred to the Ontario Public Service in 2006.

The employer argued the grievor was not an employee of the OPS on the required date.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding the grievor did not meet the requirement of being a classified Correctional Officer on July 11, 2004.

The union grieved a letter of reprimand issued to the grievor for failing to properly execute the electronic procedure for performing rounds.

The union argued the grievor was unfairly singled out during a period of widespread non-compliance due to health and safety concerns.

The employer maintained the grievor refused a direct order to perform the rounds properly.

Following an expedited mediation-arbitration protocol, the Vice-Chair dismissed the grievance.

The union filed grievances on behalf of the grievor regarding a written reprimand and a three-day suspension.

The matter proceeded via an Expedited Mediation-Arbitration Protocol.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the grievances relating to the written reprimand but upheld the grievances relating to the three-day suspension.

The suspension was rescinded, and the grievor was ordered to be fully compensated.

The union filed multiple grievances regarding the implementation of the HPRO computerized overtime distribution system, alleging inadequate training and computer access.

Employees engaged in a three-month boycott of the system, during which the employer continued to use it to assign overtime to non-boycotting employees.

The arbitrator found that the employer provided adequate training and computer access, and that any inequity in overtime distribution was caused by the employees' decision to boycott the jointly negotiated system.

The grievances were dismissed.