Felicity D. Briggs

The grievor, a banquet server with 22 years of service, was terminated for making a threatening and violent comment in an application to the Ontario Labour Relations Board, and for unacceptable conduct during an investigation meeting.

The union grieved the termination.

During the arbitration, the employer brought a preliminary motion arguing that the employment relationship was irrevocably severed and that damages should be awarded in lieu of reinstatement, even if just cause for discharge was not found.

The arbitrator agreed, finding the grievor lacked insight into his actions and posed a risk to the workplace.

The arbitrator awarded $30,000 in damages in lieu of reinstatement.

The Union filed a grievance in 2003 regarding the conduct of Ministry inspectors during Section 22 investigations.

After years of proceedings and narrowing the scope to one specific investigation, the Union requested to consolidate two recent grievances involving different investigations into the current proceeding.

The Employer objected, arguing that one of the new grievances was already before another Vice-Chair and the other involved an incomplete investigation.

The Grievance Settlement Board denied the Union's request, finding that consolidation would increase the risk of inconsistent findings and create an inappropriate overlap of jurisdiction.

In an arbitration regarding the transfer of employees from a private contractor to the Ontario Public Service, the Union sought disclosure of documents relating to IT abuse investigations of other employees and former employer policies.

The Employer objected, arguing the Union was attempting to go behind the record.

The Grievance Settlement Board denied the Union's request, finding that under the Transfer Agreement, the Employer was only entitled to review the employees' personnel files to determine if there was 'significant substantiated discipline', and the Board would not broaden the scope of the screening process.

In a discharge grievance, the Employer brought a motion requesting an order that the Union provide particulars regarding its claims of discrimination and harassment.

The parties had previously agreed to hold the discrimination and harassment grievances in abeyance while proceeding first with the discipline and discharge grievances.

The Grievance Settlement Board denied the Employer's motion, finding that ordering particulars at this stage could potentially prejudice the grievor's rights, given the Employer's burden of proof in a discharge case and the Union's assurance that it did not intend to deal with the discrimination issues during the discipline hearing.

The Union requested that the Board order the Employer to comply with a disclosure request regarding an OPP investigation, and that the Board vacate a previous consent order restricting the grievor's use of the Employer's disclosure document.

The Employer confirmed full disclosure had been given regarding the OPP investigation, which the Union accepted.

The Board declined to vacate the restricted use order, finding that the grievor and Union had an opportunity to consider the issue before agreeing to it, and that the order did not preclude the grievor from discussing the facts with family and friends.

The Union grieved the Employer's failure to offer employment to two former employees of a sub-contractor following the transfer of operations of the Central North Correctional Centre to the Ontario Public Service.

The Employer had denied the offers based on the employees' prior disciplinary records, which included warnings for sleeping on the job and a suspension for reporting to work after consuming alcohol.

The arbitrator found that the disciplinary records were either not significant enough or too stale-dated to justify denying the job offers under the terms of the Memorandum of Agreement.

The Employer was ordered to provide job offers to both employees.

The Union requested disclosure of certain previously requested documents.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued an oral ruling ordering the disclosure of the documents, subject to a proviso that the material disclosed would not be utilized by the Union or its representatives for any purpose other than for this matter.

The Employer requested that the order be reduced to writing, which the Board provided in this decision.

The government of Ontario took over the operations of the Central North Correctional Centre from a private contractor.

The parties negotiated a Memorandum of Agreement to facilitate the transition and hiring of the contractor's employees.

The union grieved the employer's hiring decisions, arguing the Memorandum fettered the employer's normal broad discretion to hire.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that the specific screening criteria in the Memorandum of Agreement restricted the employer's usual management rights regarding hiring, as finding otherwise would render the negotiated provisions meaningless.

The Union requested disclosure of an unedited WDHP report and related documents in a discharge grievance.

The Employer agreed to provide the documents but requested an order restricting their use to the purposes of the hearing.

The Union agreed to the restriction for most documents but objected to its application to a specific letter dated September 29, 2006.

Following a conference call, the Vice-Chair granted the Employer's request to restrict the use of the letter, with the proviso that the Union or grievor could seek leave from the Board to use it for other bona fide reasons.

The grievor, a Lab Attendant, filed grievances alleging harassment, discrimination, and unjust dismissal after her employment was terminated for failing to return to work or provide a medical certificate.

After numerous hearing days, the parties agreed to have the Board decide the matter based on the evidence heard to date under Article 22.16 of the Collective Agreement.

The Board found that the employment relationship was irreparably damaged and ordered the terms of a Memorandum of Settlement into effect, with minor alterations regarding career transition support and tuition payments.

During a grievance hearing regarding harassment and a poisoned work environment, the union sought to introduce evidence of events from 1996 that had been resolved by a prior Memorandum of Settlement.

The employer objected to the admissibility of this evidence.

The Grievance Settlement Board upheld the employer's objection, ruling that the evidence was inadmissible.

The Board emphasized the sanctity of settlements and noted that allowing such evidence would undermine the finality of resolved disputes and discourage future settlements.

The union and the employer engaged in mediation to resolve several grievances filed by the grievor.

The employer made a verbal offer to settle three of the grievances, which the grievor and union counsel subsequently accepted.

However, upon receiving the formal written Minutes of Settlement, the grievor refused to sign, citing various reasons including a lack of understanding due to stress and anxiety, and anger over other employer actions.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to enforce the settlement.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that a binding agreement had been reached, as the written minutes were consistent with the accepted verbal offer and the grievor's subsequent correspondence did not indicate any genuine confusion about the terms.

The Board declared the settlement in effect.

The union filed grievances alleging the employer violated a Memorandum of Agreement by failing to post permanent General Duty Officer positions at the Stratford Jail.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievances, finding that all positions had been taken up by the MERC transition process and the jail was operating in an overage position.

As no vacancies had been approved, the conditions triggering the employer's obligation to post a position under the Memorandum of Agreement were not met.

The grievor filed multiple grievances alleging wrongful surplusing, discrimination, and unjust dismissal following the restructuring and closure of provincial correctional institutions.

The grievances were brought forward under an expedited transition process established by the parties.

Despite multiple requests and sufficient time, the grievor failed to provide the Union with the necessary facts and details surrounding the grievances.

Due to the complete lack of evidence provided, the Vice-Chair dismissed all the grievances.

The grievor received a surplus notice and elected redeployment.

She filed a grievance alleging the Employer violated the Collective Agreement by creating two regular part-time positions instead of one full-time position to which she claimed entitlement.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding no violation of the Collective Agreement, as the Employer has the right under the Management's Rights provision to determine position creation, and there is no entitlement to cross-Ministry appointments.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of an employee alleging that he was denied overtime opportunities because he was prematurely moved from the Guelph Correctional Centre to a new position in Milton during a facility restructuring.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, noting that a previous decision by the Board had already determined that the employee was not improperly or prematurely moved.

The grievor, an unclassified Correctional Officer, filed a grievance alleging he was unjustly terminated and subsequently denied a rollover into full-time classified status.

He had previously signed a Memorandum of Settlement restoring him to unclassified status at a different facility, which included a 'full and final' clause.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, holding that the grievor could not revisit the binding settlement agreement simply because subsequent circumstances did not unfold to his liking.

The grievor, a Correctional Officer, filed a grievance alleging the Employer violated the Collective Agreement regarding a job offer at a new facility following restructuring.

The grievor also complained about not receiving promotions after transferring to the new facility.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding no evidence of a violation regarding the transfer, and noting that complaints about promotions should be filed against the new facility.

The grievor, a Correctional Officer, filed a grievance alleging the Employer violated Ministry policy by failing to laterally transfer him to the Chatham Jail during a restructuring process, instead rolling over two other employees into positions there.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that all staff movement was managed by the Transition Implementation Committee in the best interests of the most employees, and there is no automatic right to a lateral transfer under the Collective Agreement.

The grievor, a correctional officer, filed grievances alleging the Employer violated the Collective Agreement by assigning officers with less seniority to the Metro East Detention Centre and alleging harassment.

The grievances arose during a period of restructuring and facility closures governed by transition agreements.

The arbitrator found that the transition committee complied with the Collective Agreement and the transition agreements in making assignments based on employee rights and options.

The grievances were dismissed due to a lack of evidence supporting the allegations.