Felicity D. Briggs

The grievor was discharged from their position as a Parole and Probation Officer 2.

The parties agreed to proceed via mediation/arbitration under the collective agreement and requested a bottom-line decision without reasons.

The arbitrator ordered the grievor reinstated, substituting the discharge with a 20-day suspension, with no retroactive compensation.

The union filed multiple grievances on behalf of a youth services worker alleging personal harassment by management, which he claimed created a poisoned work environment and forced him to transfer to another facility.

The grievor sought damages including $62,000 for moving and related expenses.

After the grievor's evidence in chief, the employer brought a motion arguing the evidence to date disclosed no violation of the collective agreement.

The Vice-Chair issued an interim decision finding that the evidence did not support a violation of the collective agreement that would warrant the requested damages, noting that the grievor's speculations about the employer's motives were insufficient.

The grievor, a Probation Officer, sought $3,300 in relocation expenses after moving from Elliot Lake to Espanola.

During a ministry disentanglement process, she accepted a transfer to Sault Ste.

Marie, which would have entitled her to relocation costs.

However, she subsequently requested and was granted a lateral transfer to Espanola.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the move to Espanola was the result of a lateral transfer request, which does not carry an entitlement to relocation expenses under the collective agreement.

The Union filed a grievance alleging the Employer violated the Collective Agreement and the Provincial Overtime Protocol by refusing to compensate Fixed-Term employees for missed overtime opportunities.

The Employer argued that under the Collective Agreement, Fixed-Term employees are not entitled to be paid for a breach of the overtime protocol.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the Protocol applies to both Regular and Fixed-Term employees and does not distinguish between them regarding remedies for a breach.

The Board held that Fixed-Term employees are entitled to remedial relief if a violation of the Protocol occurs.

The Union sought to consolidate three additional grievances at a mediation session.

The Employer agreed subject to preliminary objections, and subsequently objected that the Board lacked jurisdiction because the grievances were referred to arbitration beyond the time limits in the Collective Agreement.

The Union argued the Employer waived its right to object by failing to raise it earlier and by taking a fresh step.

The Board found that the Employer did not waive its right to object, as it had not missed the first opportunity to raise the objection and the 11 business days between the mediation and the formal objection did not constitute a fresh step.

In a grievance arbitration concerning an employee who was surplussed following organizational changes, the Association requested further document disclosure after the Employer's first witness testified.

The Employer argued the documents were not arguably relevant, contending the issue was narrowly about whether the grievor was properly matched.

The Association argued the entire reorganization process was suspect as the grievor was the only employee surplussed.

The Vice-Chair found the requested documents arguably relevant and ordered their disclosure.

The union filed grievances on behalf of two unclassified correctional officers alleging that the employer engaged in an unfair distribution of hours.

The union acknowledged there was likely no violation of the collective agreement but argued the employer breached its own equal opportunity policy.

The arbitrator found no contractual obligations upon the employer regarding the assignment of work to unclassified employees and no evidence of any employer policy being abrogated.

The grievances were denied.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of a security officer who alleged he was improperly denied accommodation and forced to accept a lower-paying position during a facility restructuring.

The grievance was filed more than five years after the events in question.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding it was filed considerably beyond the time limits set out in the collective agreement and there were no reasonable grounds to extend the time limits.

The grievor, an unclassified Correctional Officer, alleged that she was promised forty hours of work per week during her training.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that her employment contract explicitly stated her terms of employment would be congruent with the Collective Agreement, which contained no guarantee of forty hours per week for unclassified employees.

The grievance was denied.

The grievor, a Correctional Officer, grieved that she was improperly denied a 'rolled-over' classified position.

She was seventh on the seniority list for six available positions.

The grievor argued she should have been considered sixth because the employee who actually held the sixth position was being accommodated and was not medically fit to perform all duties.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding no violation of the Collective Agreement or MERC Agreement, as accommodated employees are not bypassed in roll-over situations.

The grievor, a Correctional Officer, alleged that the employer improperly failed to roll her over into a classified position, asserting her hours were improperly calculated following a transfer.

The arbitrator reviewed the employment records and found that the grievor was well short of the hours necessary to be rolled over to a classified position in 2009.

The grievance was denied.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of an unclassified Registered Practical Nurse alleging the employer violated the collective agreement by failing to grant her a classified position.

The parties had entered into a Memorandum of Agreement regarding the filling of non-Correctional Officer vacancies between March 31, 2008, and December 31, 2008.

The position the grievor sought became vacant when another employee resigned on January 13, 2009.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance because the vacancy occurred outside the timeframe covered by the Memorandum of Agreement.

The union filed grievances on behalf of an employee who was temporarily assigned to different correctional facilities during a period of restructuring and closures.

The union alleged that the employer failed to pay relocation costs and sought damages for the time the employee spent away from his family.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the grievances were not barred by a prior settlement or time limits, but dismissed them on the merits.

The Board held that the employee did not actually relocate during the relevant period, received appropriate travel expenses, and that no provision of the Collective Agreement was violated.

The union filed a grievance alleging that the employer violated Appendix 32 of the collective agreement by assigning criminal registrar work to civil registrars, which resulted in some grievors being assigned administrative duties instead of court duties.

The employer argued that it had the right to assign work based on operational requirements once minimum hour obligations were met.

The arbitrator found no violation of the collective agreement and noted that, even if a violation had occurred, there was no jurisdiction to alter the grievors' minimum hour category.

The grievance was dismissed.

The grievor, a flexible part-time employee, alleged that local management misled her into selecting a 1000-hour minimum work category rather than a 1500-hour category, resulting in financial loss.

She sought compensation or the opportunity to re-select her hour category.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding no evidence of misrepresentation.

The Board held that the grievor had the opportunity to elect her minimum hour category, the Employer was not obliged to provide more hours than the minimum, and the Employer was entitled under its management rights to hire additional staff to minimize overtime.

The Union filed grievances on behalf of three employees alleging the Employer made unreasonable rules contrary to the Collective Agreement regarding flexible part-time status.

Despite multiple opportunities, the Union was unable to obtain and provide the necessary particulars for the grievances.

As a result, the Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievances for lack of particulars.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of an employee alleging her continuous service date was incorrect and seeking an amendment.

The grievor argued she should have been given years of credit dating back to her start with the ministry, similar to other employees converted to classified status.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the grievor had never occupied a flexible part-time (FPT) position and was therefore not entitled to the benefits set out in Appendix 32 of the collective agreement.

The union filed grievances alleging the employer violated the collective agreement by terminating a pre-scheduled day of court work for a flexible part-time employee and re-assigning it to an unclassified employee.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievances, applying a previous decision between the parties which held that flexible part-time employees do not have a right to be scheduled for work in excess of their stated minimum hours before work is offered to fixed-term employees.

Seven correctional officers at the Windsor Jail filed grievances alleging the Employer violated the Collective Agreement by failing to convert them to classified status.

The grievances arose from the restructuring and decommissioning of provincial correctional institutions.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievances, finding that the grievors did not satisfy the criteria set out in the Collective Agreement regarding eligibility for conversion.

Two unclassified Correctional Officers filed grievances alleging the Employer violated the Collective Agreement by failing to include them in a roll-over to classified status.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that neither grievor met the one-year eligibility criteria set out in the Expression of Interest and the Memorandum of Agreement.

The grievances were dismissed.