Felicity D. Briggs

The claimant appealed the denial of her continuing Long Term Income Protection (LTIP) benefits.

The insurer terminated benefits at the change of definition date, asserting she could perform sedentary work despite her chronic back pain and degenerative disc disease.

The arbitrator upheld the appeal, finding that the medical evidence, including an Independent Medical Examination noting a 20-minute sitting and standing tolerance, did not establish an ability to perform sedentary work.

The arbitrator concluded that a functional abilities evaluation should have been conducted and remitted the matter of ongoing compensation to the parties.

The grievor failed to attend a scheduled expedited mediation-arbitration session regarding his grievance for an alleged improper denial of compassionate leave.

The grievor had previously missed a session and was given notice of the current session by the local Union President.

No reasonable explanation was provided for his absence.

The arbitrator ordered the grievor to attend the next scheduled session, failing which the grievance would be deemed withdrawn.

The grievor, who had filed grievances alleging harassment and unjust dismissal, requested to attend the hearing via teleconference due to medical reasons, specifically anxiety and an inability to speak in front of people.

The employer opposed the request and brought a motion to disallow it, arguing that the nature of the issues required in-person attendance.

The arbitrator granted the grievor's request, finding that the medical documentation established a sufficient need for accommodation, though noting the decision might need to be revisited as the hearing progressed.

The parties engaged in a Med/Arb process to resolve outstanding overtime grievances at the Vanier Centre for Women and Central East Correctional Centre.

Following hearings in late 2017, the Arbitrator issued a decision without reasons, as agreed by the parties, detailing the disposition of numerous individual grievances.

Several grievances were upheld with specific hours of overtime or double time awarded, while the remainder were dismissed.

The Union requested that the grievor be permitted to attend the arbitration hearings via teleconference for medical reasons.

The Employer objected and brought a motion to compel her in-person attendance, citing credibility concerns in a harassment dispute.

The Arbitrator found the initial medical note insufficient and ordered the Union to provide specific questions to the grievor's physician regarding her medical restrictions and the expected duration of her inability to attend in person.

Failure to provide the requested information would result in the Employer's motion being granted.

The parties engaged in a Med/Arb process to resolve outstanding overtime grievances filed by Correctional Officers at various institutions.

Following several hearing dates, the Arbitrator issued a bottom-line decision without reasons, as agreed by the parties.

A number of grievances were upheld with specific overtime hours awarded, while the remainder were dismissed.

The grievor, a correctional officer, received a two-day suspension for a heated interaction with a manager.

The union grieved the discipline, arguing that a letter of reprimand was appropriate given the grievor's clean disciplinary record.

The arbitrator found just cause for discipline but reduced the penalty to a one-day suspension, ordering the employer to alter the record and compensate the grievor for one day of lost wages.

The grievor, a Correctional Officer, received a two-day suspension for bringing a cell phone into the workplace and checking it while assigned to a constant watch of an inmate.

The union grieved the discipline, arguing that extenuating circumstances existed as the grievor's daughter was in the hospital and he had a clean disciplinary record.

The arbitrator found just cause for discipline but reduced the suspension to one day, ordering compensation for one day of lost wages.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of a Psychologist 1 alleging improper compensation.

The employer brought a preliminary motion arguing the grievance was res judicata, as an identical grievance involving the same parties, collective agreement provisions, and facts had been dismissed by the Board in March 2016.

The arbitrator upheld the employer's preliminary motion and dismissed the grievance.

The grievor, an OAG 8 at the Toronto South Detention Centre, sought a transfer to Hamilton Wentworth Detention Centre or Brantford Jail.

After unsuccessful job trade and lateral transfer requests, the grievor submitted a medical note indicating ongoing back pain aggravated by her commute, suggesting a transfer as an accommodation.

The employer conducted an ergonomic assessment and provided new furniture, expressing skepticism about the medical need for a transfer given the grievor's voluntary move further from her workplace.

The arbitrator found the initial medical note insufficient to substantiate the need for a transfer but ordered the parties to meet to discuss accommodation needs after the grievor provides more comprehensive medical documentation.

The arbitrator remained seized of the matter.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of a correctional officer alleging that the employer improperly calculated his Continuous Service Date (CSD).

The union argued that the grievor's service and seniority earned while working at a different facility for a different employer should be taken into account.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that the grievor was not an employee of the Ontario Public Service during the claimed period and that nothing in the collective agreement entitled him to have service with another employer count towards his CSD.

The grievor, a former driver/storekeeper, resigned his position to become a fixed-term Correctional Officer and was later rolled over into a regular full-time position.

He grieved the calculation of his continuous service date (CSD), arguing his prior employment should be included.

The Grievance Settlement Board denied the grievance, finding that under the collective agreement, continuous service is deemed terminated upon resignation, and the grievor's resignation from his prior position constituted a break in service.

The grievor sought to have her previous service as a cook recognized for her Continuous Service Date (CSD) after she resigned from that position to become a Correctional Officer.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that under the collective agreement, continuous service is deemed to have terminated when an employee resigns.

Because the grievor resigned her position as a cook to take the new role, there was a break in service, precluding the recognition of her prior service for her CSD.

The union filed two grievances on behalf of a correctional officer.

The first grievance alleged improper assignment to an administrative schedule affecting statutory holiday pay after a workplace injury.

The arbitrator dismissed this grievance, finding the grievor received the holiday off with pay and did not work due to injury.

The second grievance alleged the employer violated the collective agreement and a memorandum of agreement regarding vacation selection by failing to alter the schedule when new classified officers were added.

The arbitrator dismissed this grievance, finding the employer followed the established protocol without exception.

In a grievance alleging a failure to accommodate, the Employer requested disclosure of all arguably relevant documents and medical records from the Union and the grievor.

The Union did not oppose the request but expressed concern about meeting the proposed deadlines.

The Arbitrator ordered the requested disclosure, directing the Union to make best efforts to meet the dates.

The grievor, a fixed-term Correctional Officer rolled over into classified status, grieved that his continuous service date was incorrectly calculated and discriminatory due to hours missed for family status accommodation.

The Grievance Settlement Board found no evidence to substantiate the claim of discrimination.

However, the union demonstrated that the grievor did not receive appropriate credit for some weeks.

The grievance was upheld in part, and the grievor was credited with eight additional weeks for the purposes of his continuous service date.

The grievor, a Probation and Parole Officer, filed a grievance alleging that the Employer miscalculated her Continuous Service Date.

She had resigned from a permanent position with the Ministry of Government Services to remain in her current position as an unclassified employee.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that under Article 18.4 of the Collective Agreement, continuous service is deemed to have terminated if an employee resigns, which the grievor had elected to do.

The grievor, a fixed-term Correctional Officer, filed a grievance alleging the Employer violated the Collective Agreement by failing to roll her over into a classified position.

The grievor missed the deadline to submit an expression of interest, claiming her email failed to send and she accidentally deleted it.

The Employer refused to make an exception, citing the need for fairness and transparency.

The Arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding no violation of the Collective Agreement or the MERC agreement.

The grievor, a Correctional Officer, was reinstated pursuant to a Memorandum of Agreement which specified his place of employment as the Thunder Bay Correctional Complex.

He subsequently applied for a lateral transfer to the Thunder Bay Jail, which was denied.

The union grieved the denial.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that the Memorandum of Agreement specifically restricted the grievor's place of employment to the Thunder Bay Correctional Complex and contained no time limit on this restriction.

The grievor, a Correctional Officer, alleged that the Employer miscalculated her continuous service date (CSD).

She had previously resigned from a classified Records Clerk position to be rehired as a fixed-term Correctional Officer.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the break in service caused by her resignation disentitled her to having all of her past employment considered for the purposes of calculating her CSD.