Felicity D. Briggs

The Union filed grievances regarding the scheduling of Flexible Part-Time (FPT) employees under Appendix 32 of the Collective Agreement.

The parties submitted two questions to the Grievance Settlement Board: whether the Employer must schedule FPT employees before fixed-term employees, and whether the Employer must schedule FPT employees for hours in excess of their minimum annual hours.

The Board found in favour of the Employer on both questions, concluding that the Collective Agreement contains no provisions granting FPT employees a right of first refusal for available work or a right to be scheduled beyond their minimum annual hours.

The parties agreed to refer all outstanding and future grievances regarding the interpretation of Appendix 32 of the Collective Agreement to the Vice-Chair for determination.

To efficiently resolve the large number of grievances, the Vice-Chair ordered a streamlined litigation process where grievances will be presented via statements of fact and submissions, without viva voce evidence unless specifically requested.

The grievor, a Correctional Officer, alleged that the Employer violated the HPRO by failing to offer him an overtime shift for which he was available.

The Employer provided documentation indicating that the shift was offered and refused by the grievor.

The arbitrator accepted the veracity of the Employer's documentation and denied the grievance.

The grievor, a Correctional Officer, alleged the Employer violated the overtime protocol by not offering her a four-hour overtime shift.

The Employer had instead assigned an eight-hour overtime shift to another officer who had indicated availability for the longer shift.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that the Employer has the right to determine the length and timing of a shift for which overtime is needed, and its actions in assigning the eight-hour shift were appropriate.

The grievor, an unclassified Correctional Officer, alleged that she was promised forty hours of work per week during her training, and that the failure to provide these hours violated the Collective Agreement.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the Collective Agreement contained no such guarantee for unclassified employees.

Furthermore, a comment made by an individual without authority during training was insufficient to create such a right.

The grievance was denied.

The grievor, a Correctional Officer, filed a grievance alleging that the Employer was obliged to offer her overtime work when a shift became open.

The Employer argued it had the right to determine whether to assign work and decided not to hire anyone on overtime.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the overtime protocol only applies once the decision has been made to hire overtime, and the Employer was within its rights to decide not to fill the shift.

Two correctional officers grieved after being sent home three hours early from a twelve-hour overtime shift.

The union argued the employer was obliged to pay for the full shift as agreed.

The employer maintained it had the management right to send employees home when there was no longer an operational need.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievances, noting that the Provincial Overtime Protocol does not preclude the employer from cancelling the remainder of an overtime shift.

The grievor, a Correctional Officer, filed a grievance regarding the scheduling of work on three statutory holidays.

The matter proceeded through the Expedited Mediation-Arbitration process.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance without reasons, in accordance with the negotiated Protocol.

The parties sought clarification on whether attendance at mediation sessions, previously ordered by the Vice-Chair to address workplace dysfunction at the Vanier Correctional Centre, was intended to be voluntary or mandatory.

The Vice-Chair clarified that given the level of dysfunction and relationship conflicts, attendance at the mediation sessions is mandatory.

The union filed grievances regarding the employer's requirement for medical certificates for absences over a few days in August 2009.

The parties participated in an expedited mediation-arbitration process.

The arbitrator ordered the employer to pay sick leave to employees who did not provide a note and were denied sick leave pay.

For employees who provided a note and incurred expenses, the employer was ordered to pay a net amount of $125 each.

The grievor, a Correctional Officer 2, filed a grievance alleging the Employer violated the Collective Agreement by failing to offer him overtime work.

The grievor was next in line for overtime based on hours worked, but the available work was for a Bailiff.

The Employer argued that although the grievor had a bus license, he lacked the additional training required to work as a Bailiff.

The Grievance Settlement Board agreed with the Employer and dismissed the grievance, finding the grievor was not eligible for the overtime work due to his lack of training.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of a correctional officer alleging various violations of the collective agreement.

During expedited mediation-arbitration, the employer conceded it breached its policy and expressed regret.

The arbitrator ordered the employer to pay the grievor $300 in general damages.

The grievor, a Caucasian male, filed a grievance alleging the Employer violated the Collective Agreement and the Human Rights Code by denying him attendance at a 'Race Matters' conference.

The entrance qualification for the conference excluded him based on his race.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that specifying attendance based on race for this particular conference did not violate the Collective Agreement or the Human Rights Code.

The union filed two grievances on behalf of a correctional officer alleging breaches of the collective agreement regarding his work assignment and sick leave.

The matter proceeded through an expedited mediation-arbitration process.

The arbitrator found no violation of the collective agreement and dismissed the grievances without reasons, in accordance with the negotiated protocol.

The union filed grievances on behalf of a correctional officer alleging discrimination due to the employer's ongoing failure to accommodate.

The matter proceeded through an expedited mediation-arbitration process where decisions are issued without reasons.

The arbitrator upheld the grievances in part and ordered the employer to pay the grievor $5,000 in damages.

The grievor filed three grievances alleging the Employer violated the Collective Agreement by failing to schedule her to work overtime.

The matter proceeded through the Expedited Mediation-Arbitration process.

The grievances were denied as the grievor presented no evidence to support the claims.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of an unclassified Correctional Officer, alleging she should have been paid at overtime rates for hours worked in excess of forty.

The matter proceeded through an expedited mediation-arbitration process.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding no violation of the Collective Agreement in the peculiar circumstances of the case.

The union grieved that the grievor was entitled to five overtime shifts that were instead worked by unclassified employees.

The grievance was heard under an expedited mediation-arbitration protocol.

The employer demonstrated that the unclassified employees who worked the shifts had not worked forty hours and were therefore not paid at overtime rates.

Finding no breach of the collective agreement, the arbitrator dismissed the grievance.

The union filed a grievance alleging the employer violated the collective agreement by failing to assign a classified Cook 3 to work a backfill shift, arguing the work could only be assigned as overtime to classified employees.

The employer maintained it had the right to assign the work to unclassified employees.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding nothing in the collective agreement that restricted the scheduling of overtime work to classified employees.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of a classified Correctional Officer, alleging the employer violated the HPRO protocol by failing to offer him an overtime shift.

The employer had mistakenly offered the overtime shift to another officer who was lower on the list.

However, that officer later cancelled for personal reasons, and the employer subsequently filled the shift with an unclassified officer at straight time.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that while the employer initially breached the protocol, it was entitled to correct its error when the opportunity arose, and ultimately no employee was improperly paid overtime at the expense of the grievor.