Felicity D. Briggs

The grievor, an Environmental Officer, filed a grievance alleging she was denied proper payment for hours she was on-call and available to return to work.

Specifically, she claimed she should have been called out to respond to a reported septic system overflow.

The Spills Action Centre had received the report but determined a Ministry field response was not necessary, instead referring it to the local health unit.

The Grievance Settlement Board reviewed the agreed statement of facts and relevant procedures, concluding that there was no violation of the Collective Agreement.

The grievance was dismissed.

The grievor, a Correctional Officer, filed a grievance alleging that the employer violated the collective agreement by failing to pay certain expenses after requesting a medical certificate.

The matter proceeded via an expedited mediation-arbitration process.

The Vice-Chair denied the grievance, finding no violation of the collective agreement.

A correctional officer grieved a ten-day suspension imposed for various policy violations, including failing to declare a conflict and attempting to deliver contraband to an inmate.

The matter proceeded through an expedited mediation-arbitration process.

The arbitrator found that the core allegations were substantiated and noted the grievor's lack of remorse, but concluded that a ten-day suspension was too harsh under the circumstances.

The grievance was allowed in part, and the suspension was reduced to six days.

The union filed two grievances on behalf of the grievor alleging the employer failed to provide a safe work environment.

The first grievance challenged the air quality and ventilation system, while the second alleged the grievor was threatened by a supervisor, resulting in a workplace absence for which he sought a sick leave top-up.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed both grievances in an expedited mediation-arbitration process.

The Board found the employer was conducting ongoing air quality testing and directed the grievor to the local Health and Safety Committee.

The Board also found insufficient evidence that the supervisor threatened the grievor.

The union filed a group grievance alleging harassment and violations of Article 2 of the collective agreement.

The matter proceeded through an expedited mediation-arbitration process in accordance with a negotiated protocol.

As the grievance remained unresolved after mediation, the arbitrator issued a decision without reasons as required by the protocol.

The grievance was dismissed.

The grievor, a correctional officer, filed a grievance alleging he was improperly denied compensating time off for working on Labour Day.

The employer argued the grievance was untimely and that the grievor failed to work his 'regularly scheduled shift' following the holiday because he worked eight hours instead of his originally scheduled twelve hours, having taken four hours of approved vacation.

The arbitrator found the grievance was timely due to ongoing email communications between the parties.

On the merits, the arbitrator held that the eight-hour shift constituted the grievor's regularly scheduled shift because the vacation time had been approved in advance.

The grievance was upheld.

The union filed a grievance regarding the proper payment of overtime to certain correctional officers.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued a procedural order directing the parties to exchange all documents relating to the distribution of overtime to unclassified/fixed term employees under the provincial overtime protocol by specified dates.

The Employer raised a preliminary objection regarding the Board's jurisdiction to hear six grievances filed by the grievor, arguing they were referred to arbitration beyond the mandatory time limits in the Collective Agreement.

The Union argued the delay was caused by the Employer's failure to hold a Stage Two meeting, and thus the time limits for referral had not been triggered or should be extended.

The Board held that the lack of a Stage Two meeting meant there was no settlement, and the Union was required to refer the matter to arbitration within the specified time limit after the deadline for the Employer's decision had passed.

As the referral was more than two months late, the Board lacked jurisdiction to hear the six grievances.

The union requested full disclosure of documents relevant to the grievor's discharge, including investigation reports, interview notes, correspondence, and policies.

The employer did not object to the request but required an order from the Board.

The Board ordered the production of the requested documents.

The Union filed group grievances alleging that the Employer violated the collective agreement by directing flexible part-time registrars to train and complete the responsibilities of a clerk, effectively failing to properly reclassify the positions.

The Employer objected on the basis of arbitrability.

The Grievance Settlement Board agreed with the Employer, finding that the grievances were classification grievances and therefore beyond the Board's jurisdiction.

The grievances were dismissed.

The parties sought a determination on the process for litigating numerous outstanding grievances related to the transition of employees to 'flexible part time' status under Appendix 32 of the collective agreement.

The arbitrator established an expedited process based on written statements of fact and submissions, without viva voce evidence unless necessary.

Additionally, the arbitrator ruled that hours of an unpaid leave of absence are not credited toward the minimum annual hours worked for flexible part time employees, as there was no collective agreement language supporting the inclusion of unpaid hours.

The parties sought a determination on the process for litigating numerous outstanding grievances related to the transition of employees to 'flexible part time' status under Appendix 32 of the collective agreement.

The arbitrator established a streamlined process for the remaining grievances, relying on written statements and submissions rather than viva voce evidence.

Additionally, the union asked whether the employer had an obligation to convert fixed term employees to flexible part time status.

The arbitrator agreed with the employer that there is no such obligation, as Appendix 32 does not contain conversion provisions similar to those found elsewhere in the collective agreement.

The parties engaged in a process to resolve numerous outstanding grievances related to the interpretation of Appendix 32 of their collective agreement, which introduced a 'flexible part time' employee category.

The arbitrator established a streamlined litigation process for the remaining grievances.

On the substantive issue of whether the employer had an ongoing obligation to annually review the placement of flexible part-time employees into minimum annual hour categories, the arbitrator found that the obligation ceased following a September 2007 Memorandum of Agreement that reduced the categories and removed the review process.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of a flexible part-time court clerk, alleging the employer violated the collective agreement by failing to advise her whether premium pay would be triggered for work performed on July 2, 2007.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that at the time the grievance was filed, there was no provision in the collective agreement regarding alternate days or days designated in lieu of holidays.

Furthermore, as a flexible part-time employee, the grievor did not have the option of refusing a scheduled day of work regardless of its designation.

The union filed a grievance alleging the employer violated the collective agreement by deducting a day from the grievor's vacation bank after she called in sick.

The employer provided documentation proving the grievor attended work and was paid for work performed on the day in question.

The arbitrator accepted the employer's evidence and dismissed the grievance.

A group grievance was filed alleging a breach of the collective agreement regarding lunch breaks, as the grievors were told to take an hour while others took 45 minutes.

Upon learning of the issue, the employer paid the grievors for the 15-minute difference from the time they achieved flexible part-time status until the grievance was filed.

The union sought retroactive payment back to each grievor's start date.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that the employer had already provided a remedy beyond the Board's standard practice of ordering redress no further back than 30 days prior to the filing of the grievance.

The Union filed grievances alleging that the Employer violated Appendix 32 of the Collective Agreement by assigning Flexible Part Time (FPT) employees to job shadow classified full-time staff, thereby taking work away from them.

The Employer argued that job shadowing was for learning purposes and did not reduce the number of classified staff.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievances, finding that Appendix 32 does not prohibit job shadowing and that observing another employee does not constitute an assignment of work that adversely impacts full-time regular court office staff.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of the grievor alleging that he should have been converted to full-time status and that the failure to do so was based on gender discrimination.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the grievor had not worked sufficient hours to qualify for conversion under the collective agreement.

Furthermore, no evidence of discrimination was provided.

The grievance was denied.

The union filed a group grievance alleging that flexible part-time (FPT) employees were discriminated against because they did not have the same overtime options as other classified employees under the collective agreement.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the parties had specifically negotiated the terms and conditions for FPT employees, including overtime entitlements, in a comprehensive appendix.

The Board held that differing terms for a distinct classification do not constitute discrimination.

The grievor, a Correctional Officer, applied for a job trade to move to another facility.

The Superintendent refused to let the grievor move until a replacement was found, delaying the move by six months.

The grievor sought travel time and mileage for this period.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the job trade was granted to be effective when operationally feasible, and there was no violation of the Collective Agreement.