Deborah J.D. Leighton

The parties sought resolution of an outstanding issue regarding the implementation of a Memorandum of Settlement related to a Systemic Change Program.

The parties disagreed on the language for a mediation model used to resolve conflicts between employees.

The employer proposed language requiring the mediator to pre-screen conflicts normally by telephone, citing cost concerns.

The union proposed language allowing the mediator to pre-screen in a cost-effective and confidential manner without proscribing the method.

Following a med-arb process, the Vice Chair ordered that the union's proposed language be included in the mediation provisions.

The union filed a grievance alleging the employer violated the collective agreement's redeployment provisions when it closed three jails and transferred the inmates and work to other facilities.

The central issue was whether the closure and transfer constituted a change in an 'operation's headquarters' under Appendix 13, which would trigger specific relocation and surplus rights for affected employees.

The employer argued that 'operation' meant a functioning, cohesive unit, not just the work itself.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that 'operation' refers to the productive activity or work.

Since the work of the closed jails was moved to locations beyond 40 kilometres, Appendix 13 applied, granting affected employees the choice to move with the work or be declared surplus.

The grievors, who were managers during the 1996 OPSEU strike, filed grievances 16 to 18 months after the strike ended, claiming they were entitled to time-and-a-half for overtime and standby pay.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the grievances for untimeliness under the Public Service Act.

The Public Service Grievance Board dismissed the grievances, finding that the grievors' belief that senior management was reviewing the issue did not justify such a significant delay in filing.

The grievors, who worked during a 1996 strike, filed complaints claiming compensation for standby pay.

The employer objected to the board's jurisdiction, arguing that the grievors had signed release forms settling all claims for compensation arising from work performed during the strike, with the exception of pre-existing grievances based on a specific prior decision.

The board found that the release forms clearly barred the grievors' claims for standby pay, as they did not fall within the sole exception.

The employer's motion was granted and the grievances were dismissed.

The grievor, an Operational Manager, grieved that classified Correctional Officers received retroactive increases in weekend and evening shift premiums, and argued that managers should receive the same based on past precedence.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the grievance for lack of jurisdiction, arguing the board cannot apply the terms of the OPSEU collective agreement to managers.

The Vice-Chair granted the motion and dismissed the grievance, following prior board decisions that established the board has no jurisdiction to hear such claims.

The Grievance Settlement Board heard a group grievance brought by the union against the employer.

At the request of the parties, the Vice Chair issued a decision without reasons.

The grievance was found to be without merit and was dismissed.

The union brought a motion for an adjournment of the scheduled hearing.

The Grievance Settlement Board granted the adjournment on the condition that the grievors contact the union within three months of the lead grievor's return to work from sick leave to set a new hearing date, failing which the grievances would be deemed abandoned.

The grievor's employment was terminated and later resolved through Minutes of Settlement following his acquittal on criminal charges.

The grievor subsequently filed new grievances claiming expenses and overtime payments incurred during his suspension and termination.

The Public Service Grievance Board dismissed the claims, finding that the Minutes of Settlement contained a full and final release clause barring any new claims relating to the termination.

The Board held that the employer had not breached the settlement agreement and that the grievor was bound by its terms.

The respondents brought a motion to dismiss a human rights complaint for abuse of process.

The complainant had repeatedly requested last-minute adjournments on the first day of scheduled hearings, citing medical reasons stemming from a car accident.

The Board of Inquiry found that the complainant showed a complete disregard for the process by failing to notify the Board of his medical issues in a timely manner, despite agreeing to hearing dates.

Concluding that continuing the proceeding would be vexatious and oppressive to the respondents, the Board granted the motion and dismissed the complaint.

The complainant alleged that her employer sexually harassed her, made sexual solicitations, and terminated her employment in reprisal for rejecting his advances.

The Board of Inquiry found the complainant's evidence credible and corroborated by witnesses, while rejecting the respondent's denials and attacks on the complainant's character.

The Board concluded that the respondent violated the Human Rights Code by sexually harassing the complainant, subjecting her to sexual solicitation, and firing her in reprisal.

The respondent was ordered to pay $1,000 for lost wages and $3,500 for general damages.