Felicity Briggs

The grievor, a Correctional Officer, filed two grievances.

The first challenged a seven-day suspension for using profanity and intentionally intimidating an inmate.

The arbitrator found the discipline too severe and reduced it to a five-day suspension with two days' compensation.

The second grievance alleged the Employer violated the Collective Agreement by denying the grievor an Expression of Interest developmental line.

The arbitrator found the Employer failed to comply with the posting provisions and issued a declaration to that effect.

The decision was issued without reasons pursuant to an Expedited Mediation-Arbitration Protocol.

The grievor, a Correctional Officer, was suspended for three days for using a personal electronic device in a secure area and allegedly showing it to an inmate.

The Union objected to the admission of video evidence, arguing lack of notice, but the arbitrator admitted it.

The arbitrator found the video did not clearly show the grievor allowing an inmate to look at the phone.

The suspension was reduced to two days, and the grievor was compensated for one day of lost wages.

The Union filed 44 grievances alleging that a manager engaged in bullying, harassment, and discrimination, violating the collective agreement and health and safety legislation.

After the Union presented its evidence, the Employer brought a motion for non-suit.

The Arbitrator upheld the motion, finding that the Union failed to establish a prima facie case.

The evidence presented, even if assumed to be true, did not demonstrate a course of harassing conduct or any violation of the collective agreement, but rather instances of miscommunication or less than ideal management practices.

The grievor, a Correctional Officer, worked his regular shift and went home.

He had previously signed up for overtime availability.

Due to a snowstorm, he was called and offered a part-shift, which he accepted.

He was paid overtime rates.

He grieved, arguing he should have received a four-hour minimum call back pay, noting another officer who had not signed up for overtime received call back pay.

The Arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding the grievor was offered and accepted overtime in accordance with the Provincial Overtime Protocol, whereas the other officer had not indicated availability and was thus in a different position.

During an arbitration hearing regarding a grievance for discharge without just cause, the Union requested disclosure of a document seen in the possession of an employer witness.

The Employer argued the document was protected by litigation privilege.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that while the document was originally protected by litigation privilege, the privilege was waived when the document was deliberately reproduced and found in the possession of an independent fact witness.

The Employer was ordered to disclose the document to the Union.

The union filed a grievance alleging the employer discriminated against a 69-year-old fixed-term cook on the basis of age by failing to schedule him for extra shifts during a co-worker's sick leave.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the grievance on the basis that the union's particulars did not establish a prima facie case.

The Grievance Settlement Board granted the motion, finding that the particulars failed to establish adverse treatment or that the grievor's age was a factor in the scheduling decisions.

The grievance was dismissed.

The union filed a grievance alleging the employer violated the collective agreement by failing to grant the grievor's request for a lieu day.

The matter proceeded through an expedited mediation-arbitration process.

The arbitrator found that the grievance must succeed, rejected the grievor's specific remedial request for three discretionary lieu days, and remitted the remedy to the parties while remaining seized.

The grievor, a Recreational Officer, filed a grievance alleging the Employer violated the Collective Agreement by not allowing him to apply for a Bailiff Backfill position, claiming discrimination based on his classification.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that classification is not a prohibited ground of discrimination under the Collective Agreement or the Human Rights Code.

The Board held that the Employer had the right to determine workforce composition and require Correctional Officers for the position, a qualification the grievor did not meet.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of a correctional officer alleging the employer violated the collective agreement by denying him the opportunity to apply for a Bailiff Backfill position.

The employer had issued an Expression of Interest limited to correctional officers at specific facilities where backfill coverage was required.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that the employer was entitled to determine where the work needed to be done and was not obliged to open the Expression of Interest to every correctional officer in the province.

The grievor, a Correctional Officer, filed a grievance alleging the Employer denied him the opportunity to work as a Provincial Bailiff Backfill in violation of the collective agreement and policy.

The Employer had posted an expression of interest for the role, for which the grievor applied a day late.

The grievance was heard through an Expedited Mediation-Arbitration process.

The arbitrator found no violation of the collective agreement or any ancillary document and dismissed the grievance.

The union filed grievances on behalf of provincial bailiffs alleging that the employer contravened the Ministry's Statement of Ethical Principles by failing to pay them attendance target incentives that were paid to correctional officers and youth workers.

The arbitrator found that the language of the collective agreement regarding absenteeism target incentives clearly and unequivocally applied only to regular correctional officers and regular youth workers, and did not apply to bailiffs.

The grievances were denied.

The Union sought interim relief to halt the Employer's new expedited bumping practices during a period of organizational change, arguing it caused irreparable harm to employees who were bumped before their notice periods expired.

The Employer argued the Board lacked jurisdiction to grant substantive interim relief and that the balance of harm favoured the Employer.

Assuming jurisdiction without deciding it, the Vice-Chair dismissed the application, finding that the Union failed to establish that the balance of harm favoured granting the relief, as any harm could be adequately addressed with a remedial response at the conclusion of the proceeding.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of a recreational officer, alleging that the employer violated the collective agreement and its policies by denying him a temporary assignment as a correctional officer.

The employer denied the request on the basis that too much time had passed since the grievor was trained or worked as a correctional officer, raising health and safety concerns.

The arbitrator found that temporary assignments are at the employer's discretion and that the employer did not exercise this discretion in bad faith.

The grievance was dismissed.

The Employer asserted that a binding settlement was reached during a mediation session on February 1, 2002, regarding two grievances filed by the grievor.

The Association argued that no settlement was reached because the handwritten Minutes of Settlement were never signed, the Association's president had not approved the terms, and the parties continued to negotiate substantive terms for months afterward.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that there was no meeting of the minds, as the parties continued to dispute substantive issues such as confidentiality and the timing of compensation payments.

The Board concluded that no settlement was reached and remained seized of the grievances.

The union brought grievances on behalf of unclassified court reporters and clerks, asserting they were improperly denied conversion to full-time status.

The parties submitted three questions for determination regarding the interpretation of the collective agreement's conversion provisions.

The arbitrator held that the employer is not required to pool the hours of unclassified employees to fulfill the conversion requirements, as the agreement applies to individual employees.

Regarding 'same work,' the arbitrator found that working under multiple contracts or in different locations does not necessarily sever the sameness of the work, but different classifications generally do.

Finally, the arbitrator determined that only the leaves of absence explicitly listed in the collective agreement for unclassified employees count as 'authorized leaves' for calculating conversion hours.

The union brought a preliminary motion arguing that the employer should proceed first in a grievance alleging failure to accommodate and discrimination.

The grievor had previously been accommodated in her home position, but the employer unilaterally decided to end that arrangement and accommodate her in a lower position.

The Vice-Chair held that the employer bears the procedural onus to proceed first, as it uniquely possesses the knowledge of its operational requirements, the reasons for altering the accommodation, and what constitutes undue hardship.

The union filed multiple grievances regarding the implementation of two Memoranda of Settlement (MERC 1 and 2) concerning the restructuring and closure of several provincial correctional institutions.

The disputes involved the Barrie Jail, Maplehurst Female Institution, and Guelph Correctional Centre.

At the Barrie Jail, the arbitrator found the employer did not act in bad faith or violate the collective agreement by establishing a common surplus date and refusing to release employees early without mutual agreement.

At Maplehurst, the arbitrator held that an agreement requiring a minimum of 75% female correctional officers did not violate the Human Rights Code or the collective agreement's seniority provisions, given the bona fide need for same-sex supervision of female inmates.

At the Guelph Correctional Centre, the arbitrator dismissed grievances seeking to re-run election processes for positions in the Guelph Assessment and Treatment Unit (GATU) or to grant preferential rights to employees temporarily assigned there, finding no contractual basis for such claims and noting the administrative chaos that would result.

All grievances were dismissed.

The parties referred a grievance regarding leave at the Whitby Jail to mediation/arbitration.

The parties requested a without prejudice decision with no reasons.

The arbitrator directed the employer to pay the grievor the separation allowance under Article 20 of the Collective Agreement.

The parties referred a grievance regarding leave at the Whitby Jail to mediation/arbitration.

The parties requested a without prejudice decision with no reasons.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the employer to pay the grievor the separation allowance under Article 20 of the Collective Agreement.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of six unclassified employees alleging the employer failed to convert them to the classified service.

The employer argued the grievance was inarbitrable due to res judicata, as the identical issue had been decided in a previous policy grievance which dismissed the claim for conversion of these specific employees.

The arbitrator agreed that the doctrine of res judicata applied, noting the previous decision was final and binding.

The grievance was dismissed.