Felicity D. Briggs

The grievor, a Correctional Officer, received a three-day suspension for abuse of sick time.

The matter proceeded through the Expedited Mediation-Arbitration process.

The arbitrator found that while discipline was warranted, mitigating factors including the grievor's length of service and discipline-free record justified reducing the penalty.

The grievance was allowed in part, and the suspension was reduced to one day with compensation for two days' lost wages.

The union filed a grievance alleging that the employer mismanaged HPRO, causing a poisoned work environment.

The matter proceeded through an expedited mediation-arbitration process.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the union and the grievor to provide the employer with full particulars within 45 days, failing which the grievance would be dismissed.

The grievor, a Maintenance Mechanic 3, alleged that he should have been called in to fix a jammed lock on an interview room door, arguing that the situation constituted a health and safety breach.

The employer disputed the health and safety violation and argued there was no breach of the collective agreement.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance in an expedited mediation-arbitration process without reasons, as per the negotiated protocol.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of a fixed-term correctional officer alleging a violation of the collective agreement following an incident where a manager made offending comments over a two-way radio.

The grievor claimed compensation for days absent from work following the incident.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that while the manager's comments were foolishly stated, they did not identify the grievor, and the facts did not establish a breach of the collective agreement.

The grievor, a Correctional Officer working in an accommodated position, was given the option to transfer to a new facility due to workplace restructuring.

Concerned that his accommodation needs might not be met at the new facility, and frustrated by discussions with management, the grievor chose to retire rather than transfer.

He subsequently filed grievances alleging that he was forced to resign and that the Employer failed to accommodate him.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievances, finding that because the grievor failed to transfer and formally request accommodation at the new facility, there was no evidence that the Employer had failed in its duty to accommodate.

The union filed two grievances on behalf of a former correctional officer in 2010, alleging improper treatment during the decommissioning of a correctional centre in 2003.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the grievances were filed far outside the time limits set out in the collective agreement.

The arbitrator agreed with the employer, finding no reasonable grounds to exercise statutory discretion to extend the time limits.

The grievances were dismissed.

The union filed a grievance alleging that a correctional officer was improperly bypassed during a roll-over exercise.

The dispute centered on a competition notice requirement that candidates must have worked at the specific detention centre for one year.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that the parties had explicitly agreed to the one-year requirement in a prior email exchange to prevent fixed-term officers from transferring simply to obtain classification.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of a correctional officer who elected to laterally transfer to another facility following the closure of the Owen Sound Jail.

The grievor alleged he was treated differently because casual employees received a monetary allowance and full-time employees who moved to a specific location were paid moving expenses.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the grievor was treated in accordance with the Memorandum of Agreement and the collective agreement, which does not provide a moving allowance for employees who elect to laterally transfer.

The parties sought resolution of two implementation issues arising from a Memorandum of Settlement.

The Union argued the grievors were entitled to an Attendance Bonus and retroactive pay for 40 hours per week regardless of actual hours worked.

The arbitrator dismissed the Attendance Bonus claim, finding it was payable based on hours worked, not hours paid.

However, the arbitrator granted the claim for retroactive pay, holding that the clear language of the Memorandum credited the grievors with 40 hours per week for pay and seniority purposes without qualification, except for periods of unpaid disciplinary suspension.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of flexible part-time employees who were required to be on stand-by during the G20 Summit.

The employees were paid for 125 hours at half their regular rate, but these hours were not counted towards their Total Annual Hours.

The union argued that these were hours worked and paid, and should therefore count.

The employer maintained that under the collective agreement, stand-by hours are not considered hours worked.

The arbitrator agreed with the employer, finding that stand-by pay is for being available to work, not for hours actually worked, and dismissed the grievance.

The grievor filed grievances alleging discipline without just cause, discrimination, and harassment.

Following unsuccessful mediation, the parties agreed to proceed with litigation via a truncated process.

The parties and the grievor agreed that the grievor would undergo an Independent Medical Evaluation (IME).

The Board ordered the parties to agree on the evaluator, the questions to be asked, and the information to be provided, retaining jurisdiction to resolve any disputes regarding the IME process.

The union filed grievances on behalf of several Caucasian correctional officers who were denied participation in a 'Race Matters' conference organized by the employer.

The conference was designed for employees who self-identify by race or colour, excluding Aboriginal peoples.

The grievors argued that the refusal to allow their participation was discriminatory and created a poisoned work environment.

The employer maintained it was entitled to hold conferences for specific racialized groups to discuss their experiences.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievances, finding no violation of the collective agreement, employment statute, or Ministry policy.

The grievor, a correctional facility employee, filed a grievance claiming call back pay after returning a phone call from her manager regarding missing keys.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that a short telephone discussion to inquire about missing keys did not constitute 'work' under the call back provisions of the Collective Agreement, as the grievor was not asked to perform normal job functions or give advice.

The parties engaged in a provincial med-arb process to resolve outstanding overtime grievances within the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services.

Following a three-day session, the Vice-Chair issued an expedited decision without reasons, as agreed by the parties.

A schedule of the grievances was attached, detailing which were upheld with compensation and which were dismissed.

The union filed a grievance alleging that the employer discriminated against the grievor and others on the basis of marital status during the implementation of the Attendance Support and Management Program (ASMPP).

The union claimed that only officers with spouses who were also employees of the Ministry were scrutinized regarding their sick time.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, noting that documentary evidence provided by the employer clearly demonstrated that many employees with partners not working in the Ontario Public Service were also spoken to about their attendance.

The grievor, a Rehabilitation Officer, filed a grievance regarding work assignment changes resulting from a WDHP complaint.

During an expedited mediation-arbitration process, the union requested information regarding the complaint, which was not provided.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the employer to provide the entire investigation file flowing from the WDHP complaint to the grievor and the union within three weeks.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued a brief decision to clarify its previous decision dated April 18, 2012.

The Vice-Chair noted that the previous decision failed to explicitly state that the grievances dealt with were dismissed, and issued this decision to formally declare their dismissal.

The grievor filed a grievance alleging the Employer improperly chose a union steward to represent him at an attendance management meeting and disclosed his status in the program to that steward, violating his privacy.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that the Employer cannot unilaterally choose a union representative for a grievor or notify a steward before the grievor has made their wishes known.

The Board awarded the grievor $200 in damages for the breach.

Three Correctional Officers filed grievances alleging violations of the Collective Agreement, including anti-union animus, after the Employer demanded they undergo an Independent Medical Evaluation.

At the hearing, it became apparent that the evidence would overlap with another matter involving the same parties before the same Vice-Chair.

With the agreement of counsel, the Vice-Chair ordered the matters consolidated to avoid hearing the cases separately.

The parties engaged in a med/arb session regarding multiple grievances arising from operational changes, bed closures, and transfers following the establishment of the Ministry of Child and Youth Services.

The arbitrator issued a bottom-line decision resolving the outstanding grievances as agreed by the parties, without prejudice or precedent.