Bram Herlich

The Union filed a grievance asserting that unclassified employees in the Correctional Bargaining Unit are entitled to 'max plus merit' pay increases under the collective agreement.

The Employer raised a preliminary objection that the grievance was untimely, having been filed approximately a year after the increases were first implemented.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the Employer's motion, finding that the grievance was a continuing one because the alleged violation recurred with each pay period and each time an employee reached their anniversary date.

Furthermore, the Board held that the Employer had waived its right to object to timeliness by participating in the Joint Review Process and failing to raise the issue until the eve of the arbitration hearing.

The grievor, a correctional officer acting as an Operational Manager, was discharged after slapping a fellow correctional officer in the sally port of the Windsor Jail following an incident of horseplay where the fellow officer kicked a heavy metal door shut, nearly catching the grievor's hand.

The union grieved the discharge, conceding the conduct warranted discipline but arguing discharge was too severe.

The arbitrator applied the Reville factors and found that the grievor's long history of stellar performance, the isolated nature of the incident, his genuine remorse, and the expert psychological evidence supporting his successful reintegration warranted mitigating the penalty.

The grievance was allowed in part, and the discharge was substituted with a one-month suspension, conditional upon a formal apology.

The union grieved the employer's failure to assign out-of-sector work to the grievor, a seasonal fire crew boss, based on his seniority.

The assignment, which would have resulted in overtime pay, was given to a junior employee due to the supervisor relying on an outdated seniority list to meet strict deployment timelines.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the collective agreement did not regulate the assignment of the work in question or tie it to seniority.

The supervisor's reliance on limited information to meet operational timelines was not an unreasonable exercise of management rights.

The union filed a grievance alleging the employer failed to accommodate the grievor's disability.

In an interim ruling under the Mediation/Arbitration Procedure, the Vice-Chair directed the employer to conduct an OPS-wide search for vacant positions within 40 kilometres of Scotland, Ontario, that meet the grievor's medical restrictions and qualifications.

The search is to include current vacancies and those arising before the hearing reconvenes.

The grievors, unclassified correctional officers working a compressed work week schedule, grieved that they were not paid overtime for weeks in which they routinely worked 60 hours.

The union did not dispute that a compressed work week agreement was in place precluding overtime except where employees worked in excess of their scheduled hours.

The grievance was dismissed through an expedited mediation/arbitration procedure without written reasons.

The grievor filed two grievances alleging the employer violated the collective agreement by failing to distribute overtime fairly and equitably.

The grievor complained he was not offered certain overtime shifts despite indicating a general willingness to work overtime.

However, the grievor was on vacation at the time, and the shifts in question were the very shifts he would have been scheduled to work but for his vacation.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievances as being without merit, issuing a decision without reasons pursuant to the expedited mediation/arbitration procedure under the collective agreement.

The union filed a group grievance challenging the employer's discontinuance of a practice that permitted employees to carry over unused compensating and lieu time beyond March 31 of the following year.

The change in practice had previously been the subject of a policy grievance that was resolved with a transition period.

The union indicated it had no dispute with the employer in the context of the most recent group grievance.

Pursuant to the mediation/arbitration procedure under the collective agreement, the grievance was dismissed without reasons.

Following a public service strike, the parties agreed at the local level to balance hours worked during the strike.

The employer performed the calculations in a manner consistent with the collective agreement and the Memorandum of Settlement.

The grievors, who were found to owe hours as a result of the calculations, challenged the balancing.

The grievance was dismissed following a mediation/arbitration procedure.

The union filed grievances alleging sexual harassment by a managerial employee and sought his termination or reassignment.

The parties agreed to a preliminary procedure to determine three issues based on assumed facts.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that the union's pleadings disclosed a prima facie case of sexual harassment.

The Board further affirmed its jurisdiction to direct the employer to discipline or discharge a managerial employee in exceptional cases where absolutely necessary to effect a remedy.

However, the Board concluded that while the primary remedy of termination was not absolutely necessary in this case, the alternative remedies of removing the manager's supervisory powers or reassigning him might be appropriate.

The employer brought a preliminary motion arguing that three grievors were bound by a prior arbitration award that resolved 85 outstanding grievances regarding the use of underfill designations.

The prior award allowed grievors to pursue their claims if they raised different issues.

The union argued the three grievors had unique circumstances, including promotions from lower-rated classifications and inconsistent regional practices.

The arbitrator found that the issues raised were not novel and had been addressed in the prior litigation.

The employer's motion was granted, and the grievors were limited to the $1,000 payment ordered in the prior award.

The parties executed a settlement placing the grievor, who was returning from long-term income protection, into a new position.

The settlement provided that she would receive a salary equivalent to her former position for six months, referencing Article 7.5 of the collective agreement.

The union argued that under Article 42.11, the grievor was entitled to negotiated wage increases that took effect during this six-month period.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the union's argument, finding that Article 42.11 only applies to employees who receive notice of layoff, which the grievor did not.

The Board held that the settlement terms clearly red-circled the grievor's salary, precluding any wage increases during the six-month period.

The grievor failed to appear at the scheduled arbitration hearing because he was at work.

The parties agreed to adjourn the matter rather than delay the start of the hearing.

The Grievance Settlement Board adjourned the hearing and set new dates, noting that the new dates would be peremptory on the grievor and that any future failure to appear could result in the dismissal of the grievance.

The union filed a group grievance seeking adjustments to the continuous service dates of employees converting from unclassified to classified employment.

The union argued that all hours worked as an unclassified employee, including those in less than full-time weeks, should be credited similarly to regular part-time classified employees.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding it without merit based on the specific distinctions in the collective agreement regarding the treatment of unclassified and classified service for seniority purposes.

A third party, Mr. Keating, was granted full participation rights in the grievance proceedings.

Having recently retained counsel, the third party requested an adjournment of several scheduled hearing dates.

Over the union's objection, the Vice-Chair granted the adjournment for the immediate hearing date and a subsequent date by agreement, but denied the request to adjourn dates scheduled for April, which had been set for some time.

The parties engaged in mediation/arbitration regarding outstanding grievances at the Elgin Middlesex Detention Centre.

Pursuant to Article 22.16 of the collective agreement, the Vice-Chair issued a final determination without reasons.

The employer was directed to rehire the grievor as an unclassified employee on a six-month contract and to make the grievor whole for all monetary and employment-related entitlements for the 24-week period prior to the rehire date.

The union filed a grievance alleging an improper overtime assignment at the Elgin Middlesex Detention Centre.

The matter was dealt with through a mediation/arbitration procedure under Article 22.16 of the collective agreement.

The arbitrator allowed the grievance without providing written reasons, as requested by the parties, and remitted the matter of remedy to the parties.

The union filed a grievance alleging that the employer should have called in the bargaining unit maintenance mechanic on a statutory holiday to perform a minor task.

The task, which did not require specialized tools or expertise, was instead completed by a supervisor in approximately five minutes.

The parties agreed to resolve the matter through a mediation/arbitration procedure without reasons.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance.

The union filed a grievance alleging the improper denial of sick pay.

The matter was dealt with through a mediation/arbitration procedure under Article 22.16 of the collective agreement.

The Vice-Chair, acting as mediator/arbitrator, dismissed the grievance without providing reasons, as requested by the parties.

The parties scheduled mediation to deal with numerous outstanding grievances at the Windsor Jail, including claims of improperly assigned overtime work.

While many were resolved, approximately a dozen remained outstanding.

The parties agreed to have the Vice-Chair decide each grievance based on the information presented without providing written reasons.

The Vice-Chair issued rulings on each grievance, allowing some in whole or in part with compensating hours awarded, and dismissing others.

The parties referred a grievance concerning the calculation of the grievor's seniority while employed with the Ministry of Community and Social Services to mediation/arbitration.

The parties were unable to fully resolve the issues and agreed the arbitrator should decide the case based on information presented during mediation without written reasons.

The arbitrator found the grievor was entitled to a further 75 weeks of seniority and directed the employer to amend the employment record, including retroactive vacation entitlement adjustments.