Felicity D. Briggs

Three employees were surplussed from the Ministry of Community and Social Services.

They grieved that they were not included in a December 2008 agreement that allowed fourteen Developmental Services employees who had completed COTA training to be re-classified as Correctional Officers.

The grievors had not completed the training at the time of the agreement because the class was full.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievances, finding that the agreement clearly applied only to named individuals who had completed the training, and the employer had no obligation to offer the grievors Correctional Officer work.

The Union filed grievances alleging that the Employer violated the Collective Agreement by allowing an untrained person to perform the duties of a Recreational Officer at Invictus Youth Centre.

The Union claimed the Employer reduced the Recreational Officer complement from four to two and hired a Correctional Officer on a temporary basis to act in the role.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievances, finding that the Employer has the management right to determine the staffing complement and that no violation of the Collective Agreement occurred.

The union filed grievances on behalf of unclassified correctional officers who were redeployed to the Central North Correctional Centre following the closure of the Rideau Correctional & Treatment Centre.

The grievors argued they should have been redeployed to the Ottawa Carleton Detention Centre alongside classified staff, and that the improper redeployment disadvantaged them regarding rollover into classified positions.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievances, finding no violation of the Collective Agreement or the applicable Ministry Employment Relations Committee (MERC) Agreements.

A group grievance was filed by unclassified Correctional Officers at Maplehurst Correctional Centre alleging inequities in working conditions and scheduling practices between classified and unclassified staff.

The Union argued that the reduction of unclassified staff led to health and safety issues, training inadequacies, and excessive overtime.

The Employer asserted an unfettered management right to determine the workforce and argued the Board lacked jurisdiction.

The Vice-Chair agreed with the Employer, finding no jurisdiction to uphold the grievances, and dismissed them.

The grievor, a Correctional Officer, filed a grievance alleging he should have been rolled over to full-time classified status in July 2007.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the grievance was filed outside the time limits set out in the Collective Agreement.

The arbitrator agreed with the employer's objection and denied the grievance.

The union filed grievances on behalf of several correctional officers regarding the repayment of sick leave.

The officers had been improperly rolled over and, upon returning to unclassified status, were told to repay sick leave payments.

Following submissions from both parties, the arbitrator determined that the grievors should be partially compensated.

The employer was ordered to pay each grievor fifty percent of their claim.

The grievor, a Correctional Officer, was previously surplussed and received a severance package.

He was rehired within twenty-four months and was subsequently informed he owed his enhanced severance back to the Employer.

The grievor argued he should not have to repay the monies because the Employer failed to notify him of the amount owing prior to his re-employment and provided erroneous information on its website.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that under the Collective Agreement, the Employer is entitled to repayment when an individual is rehired within twenty-four months, and the lack of prior notification did not negate this obligation.

The union filed grievances on behalf of several correctional officers alleging that their roll-over to classified status was unduly delayed during the restructuring of provincial correctional institutions, entitling them to various benefits.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievances, noting that previous decisions had established that while some roll-overs took longer than expected, the delays were due to bona fide operational issues and no bad faith was proven.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of an employee alleging she was improperly surplussed from her position as a Medical Clerk during a workplace restructuring.

The grievor had been redeployed to a different position and subsequently applied for and won a position at another facility.

She claimed her original position continued to exist and was occupied by an employee with less seniority.

The Grievance Settlement Board found no evidence that such a full-time position existed or that the collective agreement was violated, and dismissed the grievance.

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

The employer asserted that no Stage 2 grievance meeting had been held and the parties had not agreed to waive it, making the mediation-arbitration session premature.

The union did not dispute this assertion.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the parties to hold a Stage 2 grievance meeting within thirty days.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of a Correctional Officer working as a Discharge Planner, alleging that the employer violated the collective agreement.

The parties participated in an expedited mediation-arbitration process in accordance with a negotiated protocol.

Following the process, the arbitrator dismissed the grievance without written reasons, as stipulated by the protocol.

The grievor, a probationary Claims Adjudicator, was terminated for performance issues after an eight-month probationary period.

The Union grieved the termination, alleging the Employer failed to provide adequate training, supervision, and feedback as required by the Collective Agreement, discriminated against the grievor based on age, and failed to provide Union representation.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding the Employer met its obligations to train and supervise, the termination was not arbitrary or discriminatory, and there was no violation of the right to Union representation.

The union alleged that the employer breached an Interim Memorandum of Agreement reached regarding three grievances.

Following conference calls and a hearing, the Vice-Chair ruled orally that the Memorandum of Agreement had not been breached.

The parties agreed to consolidate the three grievances, and the Vice-Chair remained seized of the matter.

The parties agreed to refer all outstanding grievances regarding the interpretation of Appendix 32 (flexible part-time employees) to the Vice-Chair for determination.

The Vice-Chair established an expedited process for litigating the remaining grievances based on written submissions.

On the substantive issue of work assignments, the Vice-Chair held that the Employer is not prohibited from assigning the work of another classification to flexible part-time employees in order to meet its obligation to provide guaranteed minimum hours, provided it complies with the restrictions in the Collective Agreement, including Article 8.

The grievor, a Correctional Officer, alleged that the Employer violated the Collective Agreement by failing to schedule him to work on Good Friday, a paid holiday.

The grievance was processed through the Expedited Mediation-Arbitration process.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that there is no entitlement to work on a paid holiday under the terms of the Collective Agreement.

The grievor, a Registered Nurse, alleged the Employer violated the Collective Agreement in calculating her hours for attending a conference.

The Employer maintained it properly applied the Training Assignments provision of the Compressed Work Week Arrangements to balance her hours.

The Grievance Settlement Board agreed with the Employer and dismissed the grievance in an expedited mediation-arbitration decision without reasons.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of a correctional officer alleging she was incorrectly bypassed for an overtime shift.

The employer relied on documentation showing the grievor had called in the previous evening to state she would be unavailable, and that she subsequently declined an offered shift.

The arbitrator accepted the employer's records as accurate and dismissed the grievance.

Four grievances were filed by union members after they were not selected for an interview for a Storekeeper/Driver position.

The grievors alleged improper screening, inconsistent application of criteria, and bias.

The Grievance Settlement Board reviewed the screening process, which involved two separate screenings by Northern Recruitment and management, and found no evidence of bias or a violation of the collective agreement.

The grievances were dismissed.

The grievor, a Maintenance Welder, received a one-day suspension for submitting purchase requests for equipment deemed inappropriate for his role, including rain suits, a water filtration system, and vehicle tail-lights.

The employer alleged the items were for personal use.

The grievor denied the allegations, stating he only made requisitions which the employer could reject.

The arbitrator found the one-day suspension too harsh but noted the grievor ought to have known the constraints on his ability to requisition equipment.

The suspension was rescinded and replaced with a verbal warning.

The Union grieved the Employer's method of calculating overtime entitlement for flexible part-time (FPT) employees who change categories or hold other positions within a calendar year.

The Union argued that hours should be prorated at the time of any category change.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the collective agreement contemplates calculating hours worked at the end of the calendar year based on the employee's category as of December 31st, with no obligation to prorate.