Barry Stephens

The union grieved the employer's decision not to select the grievor for the Institutional Crisis Intervention Team (ICIT).

The grievor passed the physical fitness and screening interview stages but was not selected by the Superintendent based on attendance and work performance.

The union argued the employer acted in bad faith.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that reliable attendance is a reasonable requirement for the ICIT position given the unpredictable nature of crisis intervention.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of the grievor regarding a workplace conflict with another employee, alleging the use of profanity, insulting language, and failure to provide appropriate relief.

The matter proceeded under an Expedited Mediation-Arbitration Protocol, which relies on written submissions without oral evidence.

The employer responded that the other employee denied most allegations and believed the differences had been resolved.

After reviewing the submissions and the collective agreement, the Vice-Chair dismissed the grievance.

The union grieved the employer's failure to set an individual threshold for the grievor in the Attendance Support Program (ASP) consistent with his medical condition.

The grievor's treating physician would not provide an estimate of expected absences, and the union argued the employer should have requested an independent medical examination (IME).

The employer argued it could not request an IME until the grievor provided medical information from his treating physician.

The arbitrator ordered the grievor to attend an IME, froze his ASP level pending the results, and directed the employer to review his attendance target based on the IME report.

The union filed a grievance alleging that the grievor was improperly denied overtime opportunities when the employer assigned shifts to unclassified employees.

The matter proceeded via an expedited mediation-arbitration protocol.

The arbitrator found no evidence that the employer violated the overtime protocol or the collective agreement, as the protocol permitted assigning shifts to unclassified employees with less than 40 hours in a work week before offering overtime to regular employees.

The grievance was dismissed.

The union filed a grievance alleging that the grievor was harassed with respect to his medical accommodation, specifically regarding his removal from his work area to perform searches, lack of shift overlap, and inappropriate comments.

The matter proceeded via an Expedited Mediation-Arbitration Protocol.

After reviewing the submissions, the arbitrator awarded the grievor $250.00 in damages.

The union filed a grievance alleging that the grievor, a Correctional Officer 2, was improperly denied an interview for a Probation & Parole Officer position despite having relevant volunteer and temporary assignment experience.

The employer argued the grievance was untimely and outside the jurisdiction of the expedited protocol.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the screening process was flawed.

The union filed grievances claiming that the grievors should have been given temporary assignments at Maplehurst while working at Vanier.

The matter proceeded under an Expedited Mediation-Arbitration Protocol.

The union adduced evidence that reasonable efforts were made to contact the grievors, but they did not respond.

After reviewing the submissions and the collective agreement, the Vice-Chair dismissed the grievances.

The union grieved the employer's decision to deny the grievor sick leave pay for a series of absences between July and November 2004 due to a failure to provide medical documentation.

The union argued the grievor was under the Attendance Support Program and should not have been disciplined, while the employer asserted the grievor failed to prove the absences were legitimate.

The arbitrator allowed the grievances in part, finding the denial of sick leave was a disciplinary response to culpable absenteeism, and awarded the grievor 24 hours' pay.

The grievors, correctional officers, were ordered to remain at their posts beyond their scheduled overtime shifts while a search was conducted following a health and safety work refusal by another officer.

The employer subsequently declared an emergency situation.

The union alleged that the decision to hold the grievors back was retribution for the work refusal and claimed compensation of 12 hours lieu time and $500 cash.

The Grievance Settlement Board, utilizing an expedited mediation-arbitration protocol, found no violation of the collective agreement and dismissed the grievance.

The grievor alleged systematic harassment by a nurse at the institution, seeking $100,000 in damages.

The employer argued the issue was a personality conflict and noted the other employee had since left the ministry.

Following an expedited mediation-arbitration protocol, the Vice-Chair reviewed the written submissions and concluded the facts did not support a finding of systematic harassment.

The grievance was dismissed.

The grievor was required to stay beyond her scheduled shift due to a declared emergency, despite initially declining because she needed to care for her children.

She managed to find overnight child care.

Following an expedited mediation-arbitration process, the Grievance Settlement Board awarded the grievor $200.00 in damages.

The union filed grievances on behalf of employees in various job classifications, alleging the employer violated the collective agreement by failing to include their classifications in the Correctional bargaining unit.

The parties proceeded by an agreed statement of fact.

The collective agreement and the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act establish specific bargaining units, and the parties agreed that amending the classifications within the Corrections bargaining unit requires mutual consent.

The union conceded there was no dispute regarding the employer's administration of the current classifications.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievances, finding no evidence that the employer breached the collective agreement or relevant legislation.

The union filed a series of grievances on behalf of unclassified correctional officers regarding the calculation of their continuous service dates (CSD).

The grievors alleged that the employer denied them fair access to hours of work by offering only 8, 10, and 12-hour shifts, preventing them from achieving 40 hours per week and thereby denying them CSD credit.

The employer argued that under Article 18.01(b) of the collective agreement, CSD credit is calculated based on full-time weeks worked, meaning 40 hours.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievances, finding that the collective agreement does not guarantee 40 hours of work per week for unclassified employees and clearly requires full 40-hour work weeks for CSD calculation.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of Nurse 2s challenging the filling of three Nurse 3 positions with internal candidates, arguing it would exacerbate existing conflicts.

The grievors had not applied for the positions.

The employer argued the competitions complied with the collective agreement and the grievors lacked standing.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding no evidence that the job competitions were processed in a manner inconsistent with the collective agreement.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of an unclassified employee, alleging that his employment contract's 'positive pay' provision guaranteed him 40 hours of work or pay per week.

The employer argued that the provision merely reflected the practice that unclassified employees are eligible to work up to 40 hours of straight time per week.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding no violation of the collective agreement and that the employer's hiring practices were consistent with the agreement and past practice.

The union filed grievances alleging that the employer violated the collective agreement by failing to distribute statutory holiday work opportunities fairly and equitably.

The employer argued that while the collective agreement provides for equitable distribution of overtime, it does not grant a contractual right to work on statutory holidays.

The arbitrator agreed with the employer, finding no breach of the collective agreement, and dismissed the grievances.

The employer brought a motion to consolidate eight grievances filed by the same grievor before the Grievance Settlement Board.

The union opposed the consolidation on the technical grounds that some grievances had not yet been subject to mediation.

The Vice-Chair granted the motion, ruling that the board's broad powers to consolidate grievances should be used to avoid inefficient consequences such as multiple hearings and inconsistent decisions.

The grievances were consolidated and a specific process was established for hearing them.

The union filed grievances on behalf of unclassified employees with less than five years of service, alleging they were denied severance pay.

The arbitrator found that the severance provisions in Articles 53 and 78 of the collective agreement are not included in the list of articles applicable to unclassified employees under Article 31A.

As the grievors were unclassified employees, the severance provisions did not apply to them.

The grievances were dismissed.

The union filed a grievance regarding the calculation of the grievor's continuous service date.

The grievor alleged that during his time as an unclassified employee, he was available for full-time hours but other unclassified employees received more hours, arguing that hours should have been evenly distributed.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding no collective agreement requirement to distribute hours to unclassified employees in any specific manner.

The union filed a grievance alleging that the grievor was improperly denied special and compassionate leave and that the employer failed to properly accommodate her.

The matter proceeded under an Expedited Mediation-Arbitration Protocol.

At the hearing, the union advised that it had been unable to contact the grievor, who was no longer employed by the Ministry, to obtain further particulars.

The Vice-Chair reviewed the submissions and found no evidence of a breach of the collective agreement.

The grievance was dismissed.