Deborah J.D. Leighton

The union requested additional disclosure of documents and further particulars regarding two grievances filed by a correctional officer.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the employer to produce the grievor's exams, marking keys, and information relating to an instructor's alleged comments, as well as particulars regarding the decision to delay the grievor's request for a compassionate day.

The union filed a grievance alleging that the employer violated the collective agreement by failing to reimburse the grievor's legal costs.

The parties referred the matter to mediation/arbitration and requested a decision without written reasons.

The arbitrator found no merit to the grievance and dismissed it.

The grievor alleged that he was not offered an overtime shift despite being on the overtime list, in violation of the local overtime policy.

The parties referred the grievance to mediation/arbitration and requested a decision without written reasons.

The Vice-Chair found no merit to the grievance and dismissed it.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of an employee alleging that he was not paid the proper rate of pay or given the correct work schedule while acting as TAP Coordinator.

The parties referred the grievance to mediation/arbitration and requested a decision without written reasons.

The Vice-Chair found no merit to the grievance and dismissed it.

The grievor filed a grievance alleging a breach of the employer's policies regarding pay on assignment and pay for performance.

The board previously dismissed the grievance for lack of jurisdiction.

The grievor requested the board to reconsider the pay on assignment portion.

The board held that it was functus officio and lacked the power to reconsider its previous decision.

Furthermore, based on a recent board decision on the same issue, the grievance lacked merit.

The grievance was dismissed.

The union grieved the employer's failure to implement a Memorandum of Settlement regarding the grievor's workplace accommodation.

The settlement required the grievor to undergo an independent medical examination (IME).

The grievor objected to the employer's use of an insurance company to facilitate the IME and the broad scope of the medical release form.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered that the grievor be permitted to seek a referral from his family doctor to a specialist for the IME.

The Board further ordered that if this process failed, the parties must cooperate to select a medical expert without using the insurance company as a facilitator, and the release form must be approved by the union and the grievor.

The grievor alleged that the overtime protocol at the Metro-West Detention Centre was not followed on August 3, 2005.

The parties referred the grievance to mediation/arbitration and requested a decision without written reasons.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the grievance.

The grievors, Operational Managers, alleged the employer breached a 2002 memorandum of settlement by requiring them to participate in a selection process to reduce the number of managers from 26 to 13 following a decision not to complete the expansion of a facility.

The memorandum provided that staffing imbalances created by the settlement would not be resolved through a competition process.

The Board found that the staffing imbalance was not created by the 2002 settlement, but rather by the 2005 decision not to finish the expansion.

Therefore, the employer did not violate the memorandum by using a selection process to downsize.

The grievances were dismissed.

The grievors, Operational Managers, alleged the employer breached a 2002 memorandum of settlement by requiring them to compete for their positions during a 2005 downsizing.

The settlement prohibited resolving staffing imbalances created by the settlement through a competition process.

The Board found that the staffing imbalance was not created by the 2002 settlement, but rather by a 2005 government decision not to complete the expansion of the facility.

Therefore, the employer did not violate the settlement by using a selection process to downsize.

The grievances were dismissed.

The union filed a group grievance alleging that the employer violated Article 8.2.1 of the collective agreement.

The parties referred the grievance to mediation/arbitration and requested a decision without written reasons.

The arbitrator dismissed the group grievance.

The grievor alleged that the employer violated Article 8.2.1 of the collective agreement by failing to assign hospital escorts to escort officers in a fair and equitable manner.

The parties referred the grievance to mediation/arbitration and requested a decision without written reasons.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the grievance after considering the submissions and jurisprudence.

The grievor alleged he was wrongfully denied the position of provincial bailiff.

The parties referred the grievance to mediation/arbitration under the collective agreement and requested a decision without written reasons.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance.

The union filed a grievance claiming special and compassionate leave for the grievor for three days in January 2005 at the Toronto East Detention Centre.

The matter was referred to mediation/arbitration under the collective agreement.

At the request of the parties, the Vice-Chair issued a without prejudice decision with no reasons, dismissing the grievance.

The union brought a motion to temporarily accommodate the grievor by keeping her on her old work schedule until she could arrange alternate childcare for her child with special needs.

The employer sought to change her schedule to avoid potential workplace conflict with individuals against whom the grievor had previously filed a complaint.

The arbitrator found that the individual need for temporary accommodation outweighed the institution's concerns of possible fractious behaviour, and ordered that the grievor remain on her old schedule until the requested date.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of part-time employees who were denied holiday pay when Christmas, Boxing Day, and New Year's Day fell on weekends and were observed on the following Mondays and Tuesdays.

The employer argued that the collective agreement did not provide for moving holidays for part-time employees.

The arbitrator found no conflict between the collective agreement and Regulation 977 of the Public Service Act, which requires holidays falling on a weekend to be moved to the next regular workday.

The grievance was allowed, and the employer was ordered to compensate the grievors for the lost holiday pay.

The union filed grievances alleging that the grievor suffered harassment and discrimination based on sexual orientation, creating a poisoned work environment.

The employer brought a motion to exclude evidence of events that occurred prior to a 1998 Minutes of Settlement.

The union brought a motion seeking a compliance order, alleging the employer breached a previous interim relief order by failing to pay the grievor full-time wages during a work hardening program.

The Grievance Settlement Board granted the employer's motion, finding that admitting evidence of events settled by the 1998 Minutes of Settlement would be inequitable and prejudicial.

The Board dismissed the union's motion, finding the employer treated the grievor like any other employee returning to work on a gradual basis and did not breach the interim order.

The grievor filed a grievance seven months after receiving a 20-day disciplinary suspension.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the grievance as untimely under the Public Service Act.

The grievor argued the delay was justified because she had pursued a judicial review of the discipline, which was ultimately dismissed by the Divisional Court.

The Board applied the Becker Milk factors and found no compelling reason to extend the time limits, noting the grievor was aware of her right to grieve but chose to pursue judicial review instead.

The grievance was dismissed.

The grievor failed to appear at the scheduled grievance hearing before the Public Service Grievance Board.

The Board sent a letter to the grievor directing him to provide adequate cause for his absence by a specified date, warning that failure to respond would result in dismissal.

The grievor did not respond.

Pursuant to Rule 7 of the Board's Rules, the grievance was dismissed for failure to appear.

The grievor, a maintenance electrician, was called back to work twice on a statutory holiday.

The employer paid him holiday pay for the first call-back and standard call-back pay for the second.

The union grieved, arguing he was entitled to holiday pay for both call-backs.

The Grievance Settlement Board allowed the grievance, finding that the grievor suffered the double inconvenience of being called back twice on a holiday, triggering the superior holiday pay benefit for both instances without constituting pyramiding.

The grievors, acting Operational Managers, filed grievances regarding pay increases with the Public Service Grievance Board after the employer initially claimed the Grievance Settlement Board lacked jurisdiction.

The employer brought a motion to dismiss the PSGB grievances for lack of jurisdiction, arguing the grievors remained OPSEU members covered by their collective agreement while in temporary acting positions.

The Vice-Chair agreed, finding that Section 31 of Regulation 977 to the Public Service Act excludes OPSEU members from grieving at the PSGB.

The grievances were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.