Board reviews and updates timelines for implementing remedial orders addressing workplace harassment at Toronto Jail.
The Grievance Settlement Board conducted a review of the implementation of its previous remedial orders aimed at restoring a workplace free from harassment and discrimination at the Toronto Jail.
The Board noted progress on several fronts, including the issuance of Standing Orders, management training, and the installation of security equipment.
The Board varied certain orders, establishing new deadlines for performance development plans, diversity training, and the implementation of the new Workplace Discrimination and Harassment Prevention (WDHP) policy.
The Board also clarified the role of the seconded Deputy-Superintendent in overseeing the restoration process.
Board issues updated timelines for implementing organizational objectives and training initiatives at the Toronto Jail.
The Grievance Settlement Board issued an update on the parties' organizational objectives and the implementation of agreed action plans at the Toronto Jail.
The decision outlines specific timelines and responsibilities for the Employer and the Union to complete various training initiatives, including anti-racism, conflict resolution, and human rights training, as well as policy updates regarding standing orders, dress codes, and workplace discrimination and harassment complaints.
Grievance allowed; employer directed to assign grievor to Senior Records Clerk position permanently.
The grievor requested an assignment to the position of Senior Records Clerk at the Toronto Jail pursuant to Article 8.6.3 of the Collective Agreement.
The employer denied the request, leading to a grievance.
Following a hearing, the Grievance Settlement Board directed that the grievor be assigned to the position on a permanent basis.
Hearing protocol established for poisoned work environment grievances.
The Grievance Settlement Board established a hearing protocol for several grievances alleging harm and damages from a poisoned work environment.
The protocol sets out hearing dates for Group A and Group B grievances, limits the number of individuals the Union may have present, and establishes timelines for the exchange of will-say statements and proposed monetary resolutions.
Board sets procedural rules and evidentiary limits for remaining individual grievances in mediation-arbitration.
In a mediation-arbitration process concerning grievances over a poisoned work environment, the Grievance Settlement Board issued a procedural decision for the remaining unresolved individual grievances.
Pursuant to the collective agreement, the Board imposed limitations on evidence and set conditions for the arbitration.
To avoid lengthy litigation, the Employer accepted liability for negligence solely for the purpose of these cases.
The Board established a timeline for the exchange of updated will-say statements and written particulars of remedies sought, and directed that no oral evidence would be heard unless directed by the Vice-Chair.
Board amends objectives and action plans for improving the work environment at the Toronto Jail.
The Grievance Settlement Board issued an update to its previous decisions regarding objectives and action plans to improve the work environment at the Toronto Jail.
The Board amended several objectives, including the process for the Coordinating Committee to address unresolved issues of racism, sexism, or sexual orientation, and directed the Ministry to provide written proposals regarding paid parking and managerial appointments.
The Board also updated the responsibilities for certain action plans and appointed new members to the Coordinating Committee.
Interim relief to maintain paid leave denied where employer offered reasonable accommodation at alternative work locations.
The union sought interim relief to maintain a correctional officer's paid leave of absence pending the determination of his grievance regarding a poisoned work environment.
The grievor had been on paid leave for 17 months after receiving racially-motivated hate mail.
The employer offered to accommodate the grievor at six other correctional institutions, but the grievor refused, seeking to remain on paid leave.
The Board assumed jurisdiction to grant interim relief but dismissed the application, finding that the employer's offer of alternative work locations was a reasonable accommodation and the balance of harm did not favour allowing the grievor to remain off work with pay.
Board updated action plans and objectives to address systemic issues at the Toronto Jail.
The Grievance Settlement Board issued a supplementary decision to update its previous decisions regarding systemic issues at the Toronto Jail.
The Board amended action plans and objectives, including scheduling Coordinating Committee meetings, clarifying staff rights to report wrongdoing under the Public Service of Ontario Act, 2006, and addressing racism and discrimination under the Human Rights Code.
The Vice-Chair remained seized with respect to the interpretation or implementation of the decision.
Board suspends WDHP investigations on consent pending resolution of related grievances and sets hearing dates.
The Grievance Settlement Board issued a procedural decision on consent to suspend the investigation of Workplace Discrimination and Harassment Policy (WDHP) complaints filed by various grievors, as the substance of those complaints would be addressed within the grievances before the Board.
The Employer was directed to notify investigators and provide details of the affected complaints.
The Board also assigned additional hearing dates for specific grievors.
Board directs comprehensive action plans to address systemic racism and harassment at the Toronto Jail.
In a mediation-arbitration process concerning systemic issues of racism, discrimination, and harassment at the Toronto Jail, the Grievance Settlement Board directed the union and the employer to commit to a comprehensive set of objectives and action plans.
These directives aim to foster a fair, respectful, and inclusive work environment, addressing areas such as union-management collaboration, workplace hospitality, handling of hate mail, recruitment and promotion, orientation and training, operations, and conflict resolution.
Intervenor directed to file intervention prior to scheduled consultation.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board issued a procedural direction requesting that the intervenor file an intervention responding to the application prior to the scheduled consultation on January 3, 2002.
Representation vote directed in union certification application after employer failed to file a response.
The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent employees of the responding party.
The responding party failed to file a response within the stipulated time.
Based on the application material, the Board found that not less than forty percent of the individuals in the proposed bargaining unit were members of the union.
The Board directed that a representation vote be taken.
Board set a deadline of January 5, 2002, for filing a response to the application.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board issued a brief procedural decision directing that any response to the application must be filed by January 5, 2002.
Employment standards application terminated following settlement for $34.25.
The applicant filed an application under section 68 of the Employment Standards Act.
The workplace parties resolved all issues on the basis that the employer would pay the applicant $34.25.
The Board terminated the application.
Certification application dismissed after union failed to secure majority in representation vote; related complaint withdrawn.
The applicant union filed a certification application and an unfair labour practice complaint against the responding employer.
A representation vote was held, and not more than fifty per cent of the ballots were cast in favour of the union.
Consequently, the Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the certification application.
The unfair labour practice complaint was withdrawn by leave of the Board.
Union certification granted for security officers at Thunder Bay Charity Casino following a successful representation vote.
The Ontario Public Service Employees Union applied for certification as the bargaining agent for security officers at the Thunder Bay Charity Casino.
Following a representation vote where more than fifty percent of the ballots were cast in favour of the union, the Ontario Labour Relations Board found the proposed bargaining unit appropriate and directed that a certificate issue to the applicant.
Representation vote directed in termination application, with ballot box sealed pending timeliness objection.
The applicants filed an application to terminate the bargaining rights of the responding union.
The union raised a timeliness objection.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board directed that a representation vote be taken, with the ballot box sealed and the votes not counted until the timeliness objection is determined by the panel hearing the matter.
Union certified as bargaining agent following successful representation vote.
The applicant union applied for certification to represent a bargaining unit of route sales representatives employed by the responding party in Cambridge.
Following a representation vote where more than fifty percent of the ballots were cast in favour of the applicant, the Ontario Labour Relations Board directed that a certificate issue to the applicant.
Applicant found to be a trade union under the Labour Relations Act based on documentary evidence.
In a certification application, the Ontario Labour Relations Board issued a preliminary decision regarding the applicant's status as a trade union.
The intervenors questioned the applicant's membership evidence and the deduction of union dues without a collective agreement.
The applicant provided minutes showing the adoption of its constitution and acceptance of members, as well as employee authorizations for payroll deductions to a credit union.
The Board found the applicant to be a trade union under section 1(1) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, and directed that a hearing be held to determine the appropriate bargaining unit and whether a representation vote should be held.
Issue of intervenor status deferred to the hearing of the matter.
In an application under sections 69 and 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, the Ontario Labour Relations Board directed that the issue of whether the IAAF Local 529 is a proper intervenor will be dealt with at the hearing of the matter.