Felicity D. Briggs

Thirty-eight employees filed a group grievance claiming entitlement to travel time and mileage expenses after relocating to the St. Lawrence Valley Correctional and Treatment Centre.

The grievors had voluntarily accepted permanent assignments at the new facility in 2003.

Subsequently, due to facility closures, other employees were temporarily assigned to the same facility and received travel expenses.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the employer's good faith agreement to pay expenses for temporary assignees did not retroactively oblige it to pay expenses to employees who had already accepted permanent assignments.

Four classified Correctional Officers filed grievances alleging they were wrongfully displaced from Maplehurst Correctional Complex in contravention of the collective agreement.

The grievors argued that the employer was not providing the required level of staffing.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that a previous decision regarding staffing complements had no retroactive application, and the employer had the express management right to determine the staffing complement for the period at issue.

The grievances were dismissed.

The Union filed grievances on behalf of correctional officers seeking reimbursement for training costs incurred before they became unclassified employees, alleging differential treatment compared to managers who received compressed training during a legal strike.

In a supplementary decision, the Vice-Chair clarified that the grievances were dismissed because the Board lacked jurisdiction, as the grievors were not yet employees at the time they took the training.

The union filed grievances on behalf of correctional officers alleging that temporary assignments lasting longer than six months should have been posted as vacancies under the collective agreement.

The arbitrator denied the grievances, finding that the parties' negotiated MERC Memorandum of Agreement, which focused on job security and avoiding lay-offs during the restructuring and decommissioning of institutions, prevailed over the general posting provisions.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of a correctional officer regarding discipline imposed during a legal strike.

The parties had previously agreed to an expedited dispute resolution protocol for strike-related grievances, which included deciding remaining matters without reasons.

The arbitrator ordered that the grievor's suspension be reduced to ten eight-hour shifts (eighty hours in total) and that she be compensated accordingly.

The union filed a grievance alleging that the employer violated a Memorandum of Settlement when it failed to place the grievor in a position at the St. Lawrence Valley Correctional and Treatment Centre (SLVCTC) after Phase 2 of the facility was cancelled.

The Memorandum had provided that the grievor would be temporarily assigned to the Brockville Jail until Phase 2 commenced operation.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the Memorandum did not protect the grievor from the ramifications of the Phase 2 cancellation, and that he was to be treated like other employees affected by the change in the employer's business plan.

The grievor filed a grievance alleging that his demotion to Cook 3 violated a 1992 Memorandum of Agreement which had awarded him the position of Head Cook.

The employer argued that the 1992 agreement did not guarantee the position indefinitely irrespective of ongoing ministry restructuring.

The arbitrator agreed with the employer, finding that the memorandum did not provide permanent protection against workplace changes and that the grievor was treated in accordance with the collective agreement.

The grievance was denied.

The Union filed grievances alleging the Employer violated the collective agreement by requiring certain employees to become members of the Association of Professional Geoscientists of Ontario as a condition of employment, and by refusing to reimburse their annual membership dues.

The Employer raised a preliminary objection that the matter was inarbitrable because the collective agreement contained no provision requiring the reimbursement of such dues.

The Grievance Settlement Board upheld the preliminary objection, finding that the dispute did not arise from the interpretation, application, administration, or alleged contravention of any specific provision of the collective agreement, and therefore the Board lacked jurisdiction to review the Employer's exercise of management rights.

The grievor, a Motor Vehicle Repair Officer, was laid off following the closure of the Burtch Correctional Centre.

He was offered a temporary assignment as a Correctional Officer at another facility and later appointed to an unclassified position.

He filed grievances claiming entitlement to travel time and mileage, alleging improper layoff and schedule changes, denial of access to vacancies, and seeking to carry forward his seniority to his unclassified position.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed all grievances, finding no violation of the collective agreement and noting that unclassified employees do not have the right to carry forward seniority.

In an ongoing grievance arbitration regarding the restructuring and decommissioning of provincial correctional institutions, the Union requested certain information related to the grievor's claim of unfair discrimination in the rollover process.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the Employer to provide the requested information to the Union and remained seized of the matter.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of a correctional officer whose approved job trade to another facility was not implemented by the employer.

The job trade had been endorsed by the MERC Implementation Committee pursuant to a transition agreement regarding institutional restructuring.

The arbitrator ordered the employer to implement the job trade by a specified date and directed the parties to discuss potential compensation for the delay.

During a legal strike, the parties operated under an Essential Services Agreement.

Following the return to work, the Union filed grievances alleging the Employer violated the collective agreement by failing to schedule and pay essential Correctional Officers for forty hours per week, regardless of actual hours worked.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding it counterintuitive to labour relations to pay striking employees for unworked hours.

The Board held that the essential services agreements clearly indicated normal shift schedules would cease, and any such substantial benefit would require clear and unambiguous language, which was absent.

The union filed approximately thirty grievances on behalf of twelve employees alleging violations of Article 11 of the collective agreement, which applies to employees who do not attend at or work from any permanent Ministry facility.

The grievors argued that because the workplace was in a state of flux due to restructuring, there were no permanent assignments.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievances, finding that at the time the grievances were filed, each of the grievors was permanently assigned to a worksite.

The union filed a grievance alleging that an unclassified officer should have been converted to full-time status following the restructuring and closure of provincial correctional institutions.

The matter was heard under a mediation/arbitration process established by a Memorandum of Settlement.

The arbitrator found that the grievance should succeed in part, ordering that the grievor was entitled to the Voluntary Exit Option under the collective agreement, with no further compensation owing.

The Union filed grievances on behalf of Correctional Officers and others at the Thunder Bay Jail, alleging they should have been paid for certain days during a legal strike in March and April 2002.

The parties had agreed to an expedited dispute resolution protocol for strike-related grievances.

The Vice-Chair upheld the grievances in part, ordering the Employer to pay each grievor who was scheduled to work on March 14, 15, and/or 16, 2002, for eight hours per scheduled day.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of a correctional officer whose finalized job trade agreement was not implemented by the employer.

The parties had previously agreed to a transition process for restructuring, which included a job trading program.

The grievor and another employee had completed all necessary paperwork and received confirmation of their job trade.

However, when the grievor reported to his new location, he was sent back.

The arbitrator held that once a job trade agreement is finalized, it is binding on all parties and cannot be rescinded.

The grievance was allowed, and the employer was ordered to implement the trade and pay compensation.

The Employer brought a preliminary motion to summarily dismiss a grievance claiming stand-by pay for employees designated under the Province of Ontario Nuclear Emergency Plan.

The Employer argued there was no prima facie breach of the collective agreement, the Union was estopped due to past practice, and the requested remedy required clear collective agreement language.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the preliminary motion, finding that a determination of whether the employees were effectively on stand-by, as well as the estoppel argument, required a full evidentiary hearing to assess the real requirements of the duties and the circumstances of the job.

The grievor, a correctional officer, elected to take early retirement under Factor 80.

She later requested to rescind her retirement due to unforeseen personal reasons, which the employer denied.

Over two years later, she filed a grievance alleging bias and prejudice regarding the denial.

The employer raised a preliminary objection regarding timeliness.

The Grievance Settlement Board upheld the preliminary objection, finding no reasonable grounds for the delay, and dismissed the grievance.

The union filed grievances on behalf of a correctional officer alleging that the employer violated the collective agreement by failing to permanently assign him to the Central East Correctional Centre following the closure of the Whitby Jail.

The grievor claimed he was given a verbal undertaking that he would be assigned to the new facility.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievances, finding that the documentary evidence clearly informed the grievor that assignments were based on seniority and that he was not guaranteed a position.

The Board noted that the grievor failed to provide further evidence to substantiate the alleged verbal undertaking.

The grievor was surplussed and took a package, ending her employment on August 22, 2000.

She later applied to be rehired and was offered a position starting February 26, 2001.

The union grieved, arguing her rehire date should be recognized as February 22, 2001, which would place her within six months of separation and entitle her to return to the top of the salary grid.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding the employer had the inherent management right to determine the date of hire, and the grievor was treated consistently with the employer's rehire policy for employees returning after six months.