Brian P. Sheehan

The Grievor, a Correctional Officer, received a one-day suspension for allegedly engaging in 'Code of Silence' behaviour by failing to report a colleague's inappropriate use of force against an inmate.

The Employer relied solely on video evidence, which it claimed showed a female Officer placing her foot on the inmate's back.

The Arbitrator found the video lacked clarity and did not establish on a balance of probabilities that the alleged misconduct occurred.

The grievance was upheld, and the suspension was rescinded.

The grievor, a Correctional Officer, received a 5-day suspension for failing to complete security patrols and maintain a unit logbook during a period when an inmate was seriously assaulted.

The union argued that the unit was significantly short-staffed due to the COVID-19 pandemic and that the supervising sergeant had told officers to make do as best they could.

Three other officers involved received 3-day suspensions, with the employer justifying the grievor's longer suspension based on a lack of remorse.

The arbitrator found that while the employer had just cause to discipline the grievor and impose a more severe sanction than the others, the mitigating factors warranted reducing the penalty to a 3-day suspension.

The grievance was upheld in part.

The grievor, a Correctional Officer, received a 3-day suspension for failing to complete required security rounds, during which an inmate was seriously assaulted.

The union grieved the discipline, arguing that severe short-staffing due to the COVID-19 pandemic was a significant mitigating factor.

The arbitrator found that while the employer had just cause to discipline the grievor, the mitigating factors warranted a reduction in the penalty.

The grievance was allowed in part, and the suspension was reduced to one day.

The grievor left her shift early after a dispute with a supervisor regarding her assigned duties, claiming she was unwell and seeking to use sick credits for the remainder of her shift.

The Employer denied the sick leave claim without requesting a medical certificate.

The Arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding on a balance of probabilities that the grievor left work due to frustration over perceived disrespect rather than illness.

The Arbitrator held that the Employer was not obligated to request a medical certificate to deny the claim when the evidence suggested the absence was not due to illness.

The union filed a grievance claiming the grievor was entitled to overtime pay for attending training sessions on his normal days off.

The grievor had agreed to take part in the training sessions in exchange for taking different days off.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that under Article COR 5.3 of the collective agreement, premium pay is not applicable to a mutually agreed shift change.

The Union filed a policy grievance alleging the Employer violated the collective agreement by failing to recognize the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation as a paid holiday.

The Arbitrator found that the parties had reached a binding settlement during the grievance process when the Employer confirmed in writing it would recognize the day as a paid holiday and the Union subsequently withdrew its initial grievance.

In the alternative, the Arbitrator held that the day qualified as a 'special holiday' proclaimed by the Governor General under the collective agreement.

The grievance was upheld.

The grievor, a Correctional Officer, was issued a written reprimand for insubordination after refusing direct orders to hand over cell keys and to leave a segregation unit.

The grievor claimed a work refusal under the Occupational Health and Safety Act due to safety concerns regarding an inmate.

The Arbitrator found the grievor's actions constituted insubordination and did not fall within the health and safety exception, as the grievor was not under imminent threat and the work refusal provisions did not apply due to s. 43(2)(c) of the Act.

The grievance was dismissed.

The grievor, a Correctional Officer, received a one-day suspension for allegedly dropping an inmate's meal on the floor and failing to report similar conduct by others.

The Employer rescinded the second allegation.

Video evidence confirmed the grievor casually dropped the meal, warranting discipline.

However, given the rescission of the second allegation and the lack of apparent malice, the Arbitrator reduced the penalty to a Letter of Reprimand and ordered the Employer to compensate the grievor for the lost day's pay.

The parties engaged in a Med/Arb process to resolve outstanding overtime grievances at various institutions, pursuant to a 2011 Memorandum of Agreement.

The arbitrator reviewed 41 individual grievances during a session on June 23, 2022.

The decision sets out the disposition of each grievance in an attached schedule, with some grievances dismissed and others upheld with specific hours of overtime or straight time awarded.

The grievor, a Correctional Officer, noticed damage to her car after her shift and reported it.

The next day, she spoke to a Staff Sergeant who advised her to complete an Occurrence Report.

The grievor voluntarily went to the institution before her scheduled night shift to complete the report and subsequently claimed Call Back Pay.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that completing a report for personal vehicle damage arguably did not constitute work, and more importantly, the Employer did not direct or insist that the grievor return to the workplace to complete it.

The parties engaged in a Med/Arb process to resolve outstanding overtime grievances at various institutions.

Following a hearing on January 18, 2022, the arbitrator issued a bottom-line decision resolving multiple individual grievances, upholding some with specific overtime hour awards and dismissing others, as detailed in the attached appendix.

The union filed multiple grievances relating to a pilot project for the E-Roster scheduling system at the Brantford Jail, alleging short staffing, failure to backfill, and breaches of overtime and escort protocols.

The employer acknowledged issues with the system's introduction that may have violated the collective agreement.

However, because the jail permanently closed at the end of 2017 and given the passage of time, the arbitrator concluded that issuing declaratory relief would serve no labour relations purpose.

The grievances were dismissed.

The union filed a group grievance alleging that the employer failed to provide meal breaks and rest periods to employees at the Brantford Jail, in violation of the collective agreement and the Employment Standards Act.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the grievance was untimely, as the jail had closed at the end of 2017 and the grievance was not filed until February 15, 2018.

The arbitrator upheld the employer's objection, finding that the grievance lacked particulars regarding specific dates and was filed outside the time frames set out in the collective agreement.

The arbitrator also found no basis to exercise statutory discretion to extend the time limits.

The grievance was dismissed.

The parties participated in a Med/Arb process to resolve outstanding overtime grievances at various institutions, pursuant to a 2011 Memorandum of Agreement.

The arbitrator reviewed the facts, supporting documents, and submissions for multiple grievances.

A schedule of outcomes was issued, with some grievances upheld for straight time or overtime pay, and others dismissed.

The union grieved that the employer violated the Provincial Overtime Protocol by bypassing a correctional officer for an overtime opportunity.

The grievor failed to respond to two overtime calls separated by two hours on June 30.

Later that evening, the employer canvassed for a July 1 shift and bypassed the grievor.

The union argued the protocol's reference to 'in that calendar day' meant the date of the overtime shift, requiring the employer to call the grievor for the July 1 shift.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding the employer's interpretation that 'calendar day' refers to the day the calls are made was consistent with the plain meaning and the protocol's purpose of limiting calls to unresponsive employees.

The union filed grievances alleging the employer violated the Provincial Overtime Protocol by failing to wait the required five minutes after leaving a voicemail before offering overtime to the next employee on the list.

The employer argued that because the grievor did not call back within the five-minute window, he suffered no adverse impact and should only receive declaratory relief.

The arbitrator upheld the grievances and awarded monetary compensation, emphasizing that enforcing the protocol's integrity and ensuring consequences for non-compliance outweighed the employer's arguments against a windfall.

The union referred a grievance challenging a 10-day suspension to arbitration more than three years after it was filed.

The employer raised a preliminary objection regarding timeliness.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding it was referred well outside the collective agreement time limits and there was no reasonable basis to exercise statutory discretion to extend the time limits, noting the discipline was already off the grievor's record.

The grievor, a casual Customer Service Representative at the LCBO, was issued a 10-day suspension following a physical altercation with a customer.

The customer became violent after being asked for ID, leading to a physical struggle with other employees.

The grievor's involvement was limited to holding the customer's hat and subsequently following the customer out of the store to clear broken glass, which violated the Employer's Stop Theft Policy.

The Arbitrator found that while the grievor breached the policy by exiting the store, her physical involvement in the altercation was minimal compared to her co-workers.

The grievance was allowed in part, and the 10-day suspension was reduced to a one-day suspension.

The grievor, a full-time Warehouse Worker and Union Steward, requested Union leave to attend a pre-bargaining conference.

The Employer charged the hours he was scheduled to work during his leave for the purposes of overtime equalization.

The Union grieved, arguing this was improper.

The Arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that the collective agreement's overtime equalization provision explicitly states hours will be charged when an employee is 'absent due to any reason', which includes Union leave.

The parties participated in a Med-Arb process to resolve outstanding overtime grievances at various institutions within the Ministry of the Solicitor General.

Following a hearing on December 10, 2020, the Arbitrator issued a bottom-line decision without reasons, as agreed by the parties.

Several grievances were upheld with specific hours of overtime awarded, while the majority were dismissed.