Dale Hewat

The Union grieved that the Employer violated the Collective Agreement and the Probation Office Recruitment Process (PORP) Memorandum of Agreement by filling a Probation Officer vacancy in Kenora through a roll-over instead of a lateral transfer.

The Arbitrator found that under the PORP MOA, the vacancy should have been filled through a lateral transfer, as there were two candidates on the lateral transfer list at the time.

The grievance was upheld, and the Employer was directed to offer the position as per the lateral transfer log and adhere to the PORP mechanisms in the future.

The Union filed grievances alleging the Employer failed to make timely payments to five grievors pursuant to various Minutes of Settlement.

The Employer provided no explanation for the delays, which ranged from several months to unpaid as of the hearing date.

The Arbitrator found that a mere declaration of breach would be insufficient to deter future delays or recognize the impact on the grievors.

The Arbitrator ordered the Employer to pay $500 in damages to each of the five grievors.

The grievors, who rolled over from fixed-term to permanent full-time positions in December 2016, filed grievances seeking to have their Continuous Service Dates (CSDs) recalculated retroactively to include weeks where less than 40 hours were worked.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievances, noting that prior to 2018, CSD calculations required 40 straight-time hours per week.

Although the collective agreement was amended in 2018 to include all straight-time hours for fixed-term staff, the parties had previously agreed this change was not retroactive.

Since the grievors rolled over in 2016, there was no basis to apply the 2018 formula to them.

The grievor, a Correctional Officer, filed a grievance claiming the Employer breached the collective agreement by failing to include his past seasonal service with another ministry in the calculation of his Continuous Service Date.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that the exact same issues had been raised and fully determined in a prior grievance decision involving the same grievor.

The grievor, a Probation and Parole Officer on a fixed term contract, resigned from her position to take a job with a municipal police force.

She returned to her previous position within a few weeks and sought to have her prior years of service recognized for seniority purposes.

The grievor argued that her manager had incorrectly advised her that she would not lose her seniority if she returned within 13 weeks.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that under the clear terms of the Collective Agreement, a resignation constitutes a break in continuous service, and the manager's incorrect advice did not override the collective agreement.

The union grieved a 5-day suspension issued to a correctional officer for failing to properly supervise inmates, including allowing them to serve their own meals and congregate in cells.

The employer argued the discipline was reasonable given the safety risks.

The arbitrator found that while the misconduct was serious, the employer failed to give sufficient weight to mitigating factors, including the grievor's clean disciplinary record, immediate remorse, and the fact that he was distracted by an unruly inmate during the shift.

The grievance was allowed in part, and the suspension was reduced to 3 days.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of a Probation and Parole Officer who claimed he was misinformed by his manager about his eligibility for a vacant position and was therefore improperly denied consideration.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that under the applicable Memorandum of Agreement, the grievor was required to submit an Expression of Interest to be considered for the vacancy.

Because the grievor failed to submit an Expression of Interest, the employer was not obliged to consider him, regardless of any misinformation provided by the manager.

The grievance was dismissed.

The grievor, a fixed-term Corrections Officer, applied for and accepted a roll-over to a regular classified position at a different institution.

The expression of interest clearly stated that successful applications were final and binding.

The grievor subsequently decided he did not want the new position and wished to return to his previous fixed-term role.

To do so, he signed a Memorandum of Agreement and resigned from the regular position, which resulted in a break in service and the loss of his accumulated seniority.

The union grieved, alleging the grievor signed the MOA under duress.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding no evidence of duress and concluding that the grievor's voluntary resignation properly triggered a break in service under the collective agreement.

The grievor, a fixed-term correctional officer, applied for and was accepted into a regular (classified) position at another facility.

The expression of interest clearly stated that successful applications were final and binding.

The grievor later decided he did not want the new position and wished to return to his previous fixed-term role.

To do so, he signed a Memorandum of Agreement and resigned from the regular position, which resulted in a break in service and the resetting of his seniority to zero.

The union grieved, alleging the agreement was signed under duress and the loss of seniority violated the collective agreement.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding no duress and that the grievor's voluntary resignation properly triggered a break in service under the collective agreement.

The union filed a group grievance in 2023 alleging that the employer violated the collective agreement when it reclassified the grievors and red-circled their salaries in 2014.

The employer brought a motion to dismiss the grievance for delay.

The arbitrator found that the nine-year delay was substantial and that prejudice to the employer could be presumed.

The arbitrator declined to extend the time limits and dismissed the grievance.

The Union filed two grievances alleging harassment and discrimination against a K9 handler by the Employer, including incidents following a medical leave and a dispute over the return of a work vehicle.

Following an unsuccessful mediation, the Arbitrator issued a case management decision setting a timeline for the exchange of particulars, production requests, and preliminary objections, and scheduled hearing dates for 2026.

The union filed grievances on behalf of three employees challenging the calculation of their Continuous Service Dates (CSD).

The grievors sought to have their CSDs recalculated retroactively to include all weeks where they worked less than 40 hours.

The arbitrator found that the grievors had rolled over from fixed-term to permanent full-time positions prior to 2016, and that the 2016 and 2018 collective agreement changes to the CSD calculation formula for fixed-term staff were not retroactive.

The grievances were dismissed.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of a fixed-term Correctional Officer who claimed he should have been rolled over to regular classified status earlier than the employer determined, seeking damages.

Following a review of the grievor's straight-time hours, the parties agreed that he qualified for roll-over on April 15, 2024, and that no damages were owed.

The parties further agreed to adjust the grievor's Continuous Service Date to November 18, 2018.

The arbitrator issued a decision reflecting this agreement.

During an adjournment of a grievance arbitration, the parties met with the arbitrator to discuss ongoing requests for the exchange of production.

The employer agreed to provide the union with the grievor's WDHP, disability accommodation, and corporate medical files by a specified date.

The union agreed to disclose the grievor's medical file for a specific period, subject to strict confidentiality conditions restricting its use and dissemination.

The arbitrator issued an order reflecting these agreements and scheduled the next hearing date.

The grievor, a correctional officer, was sent home without pay after failing to provide a negative Covid-19 Rapid Antigen Test (RAT) prior to her shift.

The grievor had just received the RAT kits, was unfamiliar with them, and expressed safety concerns about performing the test in her vehicle.

The arbitrator found that the grievor's actions did not constitute a refusal to test, given the unique circumstances of the initial rollout of the screening process and her attempt to find a safe place to test.

The grievance was allowed in part, and the employer was ordered to pay the grievor 50% of her salary for the missed shift.

The Employer brought a motion to dismiss the Union's grievance for failing to establish a prima facie case.

The grievance alleged that the Employer arbitrarily denied the grievor an opportunity to participate in a job competition interview after he failed to confirm his attendance by the stated deadline.

The Arbitrator dismissed the Employer's motion, finding that the Union's pleadings provided a legal theory capable of supporting a violation of the Collective Agreement, as it was plausible that Management's decision not to interview the grievor was unreasonable or arbitrary given the circumstances.

The grievor, a fixed-term employee, alleged that the employer violated the collective agreement and mistreated her after she suffered a slip and fall at work.

The employer brought a motion to dismiss the grievance for failing to make out a prima facie case, arguing that the grievor had no right to permanent employment and had failed to provide requested particulars.

The arbitrator found the motion to dismiss premature given the grievor's personal circumstances, and ordered the union to provide full particulars by a specified date, failing which the grievance would be dismissed.

The grievor, a Corrections Officer, was issued a 15-day suspension for improperly wearing his PPE and intentionally blocking a CCTV camera with a wet floor sign during a COVID-19 outbreak, which prevented contact tracing.

The union grieved the discipline, arguing it was excessive, inconsistent with past practice, and motivated by anti-union animus.

The Arbitrator found no evidence of condonation or anti-union animus and upheld the seriousness of the camera obstruction.

However, the Arbitrator found the PPE breach warranted only a letter of counsel and reduced the overall penalty to a 10-day suspension.

The union filed a grievance alleging the employer violated the collective agreement during a 2021 job posting for a Product Consultant position.

The employer conceded that the grievor was improperly screened out and that the process did not comply with the collective agreement.

The arbitrator declared that the employer violated Article 22.5(a) of the collective agreement and reminded the employer of its obligations regarding the job competition process.

The Employer brought a motion to adjourn the hearing scheduled for October 27, 2023, citing a recent change in counsel, incomplete production of documents, and the medical unavailability and anxiety of its first witness.

The Union opposed the adjournment, arguing it would cause undue delay and negatively impact the grievor's mental health.

The Arbitrator granted the adjournment, finding that the lack of full production and the specific circumstances of the witness justified the delay, and ordered a schedule for document production and the drafting of an Agreed Statement of Facts.