D.J.D. Leighton

A correctional officer filed a grievance alleging the employer breached the collective agreement by denying reimbursement for breakfast and lunch meal claims while he was on escort duty.

The union argued the grievor was at least 24 km away from the work site during normal meal breaks, satisfying the employer's travel and meal expenses directive.

The employer contended the grievor should have eaten before his shift began at 0500 hours.

The arbitrator granted the grievance and ordered the employer to pay the meal allowances.

The grievor failed to attend the scheduled expedited arbitration hearing dates after a previous adjournment was granted to allow him to bring necessary documents.

The employer brought a motion seeking an order to compel his attendance.

The arbitrator ordered the grievor to attend the next scheduled hearing dates, failing which his grievance may be dismissed.

The grievors, customer service representatives, alleged that the employer violated the collective agreement by failing to distribute overtime equitably for weekends, holidays, and evenings.

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

The arbitrator denied the grievances.

The union filed a group grievance alleging that the employer failed to distribute overtime in a fair and equitable manner, contrary to Article 8 of the collective agreement.

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

The Vice-Chair denied the grievances.

A correctional officer filed a grievance alleging that the employer breached Article 2 of the collective agreement.

The parties referred the grievance to mediation/arbitration under Article 22.16 of the collective agreement.

Following an expedited hearing, the Vice-Chair found no violation of the collective agreement and dismissed the grievance without written reasons.

The complainant, a supervisor, grieved that a salary compression between himself and his subordinates violated his working conditions.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the grievance as not arbitrable, arguing the board lacked jurisdiction to rectify salary compression absent an allegation of a specific policy breach, discrimination, or bad faith.

The Public Service Grievance Board found that the Public Service Act gives the Civil Service Commission the exclusive right to set salary ranges for managers, and the temporary compression policy in effect did not require ministries to pay employees in a salary compression.

As there was no allegation of discrimination, arbitrariness, or bad faith, the board concluded it had no jurisdiction to hear the case on the merits and dismissed the grievance.

The complainant, an unrepresented employee, requested an adjournment of his scheduled hearing dates for medical reasons.

The employer opposed the adjournment and brought a motion to dismiss the complaints due to the complainant's failure to attend and lack of medical evidence.

The Board suspended its decision on the motion and ordered the complainant to provide medical evidence supporting his inability to attend.

The complainant subsequently provided a doctor's letter confirming his medical condition prevented his attendance.

The Board granted the adjournment and denied the employer's motion to dismiss, finding that the complainant had satisfied the requirements of the Board's order and that granting the adjournment was fair in the circumstances.

The grievor, a Group Manager Audit with the Ministry of Finance, grieved his termination for conflict of interest.

The employer alleged he operated a private accounting and bookkeeping business for various clients, including some he audited, while employed by the Ministry.

The grievor denied the allegations, claiming the business belonged to his brother.

The Public Service Grievance Board found the grievor's evidence lacked credibility and concluded he had operated the business, issued clearance certificates to his own clients who were suppressing sales, and used his position for personal gain.

The Board held this was a serious conflict of interest and breach of trust justifying dismissal.

The grievance was dismissed.

The grievor opted out of a divestment and left the Ontario Public Service, electing to receive severance payments under Appendix 18 of the collective agreement.

He subsequently returned to an unclassified position in the OPS.

The employer withheld a portion of his severance payments pursuant to article 20.2.5, which requires repayment if an employee is re-appointed to a position in the OPS.

The union grieved, arguing that article 20 only applies to classified employees.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, following previous jurisprudence that the phrase 'position in the Ontario Public Service' includes unclassified positions, and therefore the repayment obligation applied.

Four correctional officers filed grievances claiming travel time after the closure of L'Original Jail and their relocation to the Ottawa Carleton Detention Centre.

The employer objected that the grievances were untimely.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the claim arose from a March 2001 settlement and was not a continuing grievance.

The grievances were filed over three months late.

Applying the Becker Milk factors, the Board declined to exercise its discretion under section 48(16) of the Labour Relations Act to extend the time limits, finding the grievors were not diligent and deliberately delayed filing until they received mileage payments.

The grievances were dismissed.

The union sought an interim relief order directing the employer to place the grievor in an appropriate position accommodating his medical restrictions, outside of a correctional facility, pending the hearing of his grievance alleging harassment and discrimination based on sexual orientation.

The employer opposed, arguing the relief was akin to a final order and should only preserve the status quo.

The Grievance Settlement Board held it had jurisdiction to order interim relief requiring positive action under s. 48(12)(i) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

Finding that the union had an arguable case and that the potential harm to the grievor's health and finances outweighed any inconvenience to the employer, the Board granted the motion and ordered the employer to make best efforts to accommodate the grievor within 30 days, or place him back on the payroll.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievances without reasons, as directed by the parties.

The union filed a grievance regarding the quantum of damages owed to employees after the employer breached the collective agreement during a divestment process.

The board previously found that the employer failed to include seniority protection for lay-off and promotion in job offers to divested employees.

The union argued damages should be based on length of service, while the employer argued for nominal or no damages.

The arbitrator held that the loss of opportunity to choose work with seniority protection was compensable and awarded damages calculated by multiplying two weeks' salary by each grievor's years of service, plus interest.

The grievor, a registered nursing assistant, transitioned from an unclassified part-time position to a full-time classified position.

She grieved the method of calculating her seniority under the collective agreement, arguing she received no credit for her part-time casual hours.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, noting the grievor acknowledged her start date was calculated according to the collective agreement, and therefore no breach occurred.

The grievor filed a grievance in 1993 alleging he was wrongly denied an interview in a job competition.

He was subsequently promoted to an equivalent classification and promoted again thereafter.

The employer argued that proceeding with the hearing would serve no purpose as no meaningful remedy could be awarded.

The Grievance Settlement Board agreed and dismissed the grievance, noting that hearing a case where no remedy is available is a waste of resources.

The union grieved the employer's interpretation of Article 20.4.1.5 of the collective agreement regarding displacement rights for a surplussed employee.

The employer argued that the employee could only bump into a position if they had gained the required experience within 40km of their home position.

The Grievance Settlement Board agreed with the union, declaring that while the displacement position must be within 40km, the experience required for that position could have been obtained either within or beyond the 40km radius.

The Union filed a grievance alleging the Employer breached section 5.3 of Appendix 18 of the collective agreement by failing to ensure that receiving employers recognized seniority rights for lay-off and job competitions in Requests for Proposals (RFPs).

The parties sought an interpretation of section 5.3 prior to a hearing on remedy.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that the Employer is obligated to require new employers to provide core seniority protections in their job offers to transferring employees, specifically a 'relatively equal' clause for job competitions and a 'last hired, first laid off' provision for lay-offs.

The Grievance Settlement Board was asked to interpret section 5.2 of Appendix 18 of the collective agreement between the parties.

The issue was whether employees who exited the Ontario Public Service (OPS) under section 5.2, received surplus entitlements, and subsequently secured a new position in the OPS, were required to repay those monies pursuant to Articles 20.2.4 or 20.2.5.

The Union argued that these articles conferred a benefit and should not apply, while the Employer argued they were obligations.

The Board held that while section 5.2 removed Article 20 assistance for exiting employees, it did not prevent them from competing for open positions.

If successful, the collective agreement applies to them, and they are obligated to repay the monies under Articles 20.2.4 and 20.2.5, after which their continuous service date is recalculated.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued a brief decision regarding the interpretation of a collective agreement.

The Board held that an employee surplused under Section 5.2 of Appendix 18 who subsequently secures a position within the Ontario Public Service is required to repay monies in accordance with Articles 20.2.4 or 20.2.5.

Furthermore, the employee's service date must be calculated as required by those articles.

Reasons were to follow.

The grievors, Operational Managers, filed grievances claiming inadequate compensation for statutory holidays, seeking 12 hours of lieu time retroactively to match a benefit awarded to bargaining unit members.

The employer objected that the grievances were untimely and without merit.

The Public Service Grievance Board dismissed the grievances, finding that a four-year delay in filing was unjustified.

Furthermore, the Board held that management employees have no legal entitlement to benefits solely because they were granted to bargaining unit members under a collective agreement.