Felicity D. Briggs

The grievor, a Provincial Bailiff, filed six grievances making numerous allegations against the employer.

Following a health reassignment to a Correctional Officer position, the parties agreed to an expedited med/arb process for the outstanding grievances.

When mediation failed, the parties agreed the arbitrator would issue a bottom-line order without reviewing facts or submissions.

Finding merit to some allegations, the arbitrator ordered the employer to pay the grievor $5,000.

The grievor, a Storekeeper, was scheduled to be bumped from his position due to workplace restructuring but was injured at work on the day the bumping was to occur.

When he briefly returned to work a year later, the Employer attempted to serve him with the bumping notice, which he refused to accept before leaving work due to illness.

The grievor filed a grievance alleging the Employer's actions were discriminatory and harassing.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding no evidence of discrimination or harassment in the Employer's attempt to serve the notice.

The grievor, a Correctional Officer, sought relocation expenses after accepting a lateral transfer to the Quinte Detention Centre.

He alleged he received inaccurate information from the Workforce Adjustment Unit during the Ministry's restructuring and facility closures.

The Grievance Settlement Board found no evidence of inaccurate information and noted the grievor voluntarily accepted the lateral transfer.

The grievance was denied as there was no violation of the Collective Agreement or the related Memorandum of Settlement.

In a supplemental decision following a November 2006 ruling that allowed grievances regarding travel time and mileage, the Grievance Settlement Board addressed the outstanding issue of whether interest should be paid on those monies.

The Board ordered the employer to pay interest to the grievors, thereby disposing of several related grievances.

The grievor, a Youth Service Officer, grieved the Employer's denial of her request for a lateral transfer to the Sudbury Jail following organizational changes.

The union argued that all positions resulting from the disentanglement agreement should have been filled by lateral transfer.

The arbitrator found that four of the seven positions were filled by roll-overs, and the remaining three were filled by lateral transfers of employees with more seniority than the grievor.

The grievance was dismissed.

The Union filed grievances on behalf of correctional officers alleging the Employer improperly calculated their continuous service dates by not accumulating service credits for weeks when unclassified employees worked less than 40 hours.

The arbitrator found the facts and submissions were identical to a previous Grievance Settlement Board decision which upheld the '40 hour rule' agreed to in the collective agreement.

The grievances were dismissed.

The grievor, a correctional officer, alleged that he was not offered employment with the Ontario Public Service at the same time as other employees during the transition of a private jail back into the public service.

The grievor sought lost compensation for the delay.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the process for litigating disputes regarding job offers during the transition had been completed for some time.

The grievance was dismissed as out of time.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of a correctional officer alleging that the employer violated the collective agreement through its administration of the Resource Position Management Program.

The matter proceeded through an expedited mediation-arbitration process.

The arbitrator found no evidence of bad faith and held that the employer had the right to assign work in a manner consistent with the collective agreement.

The grievance was dismissed.

The union filed grievances on behalf of correctional officers alleging that the employer violated the collective agreement, resulting in improper merit pay calculations.

The parties participated in an expedited mediation-arbitration process.

The arbitrator denied the grievances without reasons, in accordance with the negotiated protocol for the expedited process.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of a correctional officer alleging that her treatment during the restructuring and closure of provincial correctional institutions was threatening, unfair, and unreasonable.

The Grievance Settlement Board reviewed the employee's history of moving into various positions as a result of transitional changes.

The Board found no evidence of bad faith and no proof of a violation of the Collective Agreement.

The grievance was dismissed.

The grievors were declared surplus and opted to be redeployed.

While awaiting redeployment, their schedules were changed to Monday to Friday day shifts, resulting in a loss of shift premiums, overtime, and statutory holiday pay.

The union filed grievances alleging violations of the Collective Agreement.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievances, finding that the employer is entitled to schedule employees as long as the schedule does not violate any provision of the Collective Agreement, and there was no prohibition against scheduling an employee to work eight hours from Monday to Friday.

The grievor, a correctional officer, filed a grievance after the employer requested a medical certificate verifying an illness.

The request was made after the grievor refused to work overtime due to an unforeseen emergency situation at the conclusion of his shift and went home.

The matter proceeded through an expedited mediation-arbitration process.

The Grievance Settlement Board denied the grievance without issuing formal reasons, in accordance with the negotiated protocol.

Two Correctional Officers filed grievances alleging a violation of the collective agreement because they were not paid overtime rates for training, unlike some of their colleagues.

The Grievance Settlement Board, issuing a decision without reasons pursuant to an expedited mediation-arbitration protocol, found that the grievors had received sufficient notice of a schedule change to avoid the payment of overtime rates.

The grievances were denied.

In an expedited mediation-arbitration process, several grievances were filed by correctional officers alleging a poisoned work environment, bullying, and harassment by co-workers.

The Vice-Chair found a clear level of dysfunction in the department, noting that some grievors were also named as aggressors by others.

The Employer was ordered to retain an external mediator to conduct a non-punitive mediation process involving the grievors and regular staff in the department.

The grievor, a social worker, filed three grievances.

Two alleged that the employer failed to properly recognize her seniority in work assignments, which were dismissed as no violation of the collective agreement was established.

The third grievance alleged a poisoned work environment stemming from a conflict with a co-worker.

Noting that a previous internal mediation attempt had failed and exacerbated the situation, the arbitrator ordered the employer to retain an external mediator to address the workplace conflict.

The grievor, a Correctional Officer, filed a grievance regarding a workplace conflict with a fellow officer.

The matter proceeded through an expedited mediation-arbitration process.

The Vice-Chair ordered the employer to retain an external mediator to resolve the conflict, noting the process was not punitive and would not be noted in either officer's file.

The union filed grievances on behalf of an employee alleging that the employer violated the collective agreement by denying her work on various statutory holidays.

The matter proceeded through an expedited mediation-arbitration process.

The arbitrator found no provision in the collective agreement or any local agreement that had been violated regarding the scheduling of overtime for record clerks.

The grievances were dismissed.

The grievor, a Bee Inspector, filed two grievances challenging the Employer's rulings that his roles with beekeeping associations constituted conflicts of interest.

The Employer raised a preliminary objection that the Grievance Settlement Board lacked jurisdiction because no discipline was imposed and no specific provision of the collective agreement was violated.

The Board upheld the preliminary objection, finding that the letters directing the grievor to choose between his employment and association roles were not disciplinary in nature, and therefore did not violate the discipline and dismissal provisions of the collective agreement.

The grievances were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

In a grievance regarding the Employer's alleged failure to accommodate, a teleconference was held to address preliminary issues concerning an upcoming Independent Medical Evaluation (IME).

The Vice-Chair ruled that the grievor's general practitioner could provide written documentation to the IME but could not engage in verbal consultation.

The Vice-Chair also ordered that the IME report be kept in a sealed envelope with restricted access by the Employer, and that the IME be instructed to limit the report's contents to medical history relevant to the grievor's neurological condition and need for accommodation.

The employer brought a motion to dismiss the grievor's discharge and discipline grievances after the grievor repeatedly breached a Board order by disclosing restricted documents to external parties, including the OPP and RCMP.

The employer argued the grievor's conduct demonstrated he was ungovernable and that the employment relationship was irrevocably severed.

The Board found the breaches to be extremely serious but declined to dismiss the grievances as a preliminary matter, noting that the employer had not yet proven the grievor was ungovernable in the first instance.

The Board issued a last chance order, warning that any further breach would result in prompt dismissal of all grievances, and admitted the evidence of the breaches as post-grievance evidence.