Felicity D. Briggs

The union filed a policy grievance regarding compensation and credits for its members during the August 2003 provincial power shortage.

Following a Consent Order issued in November 2003, the employer took the position that there was no violation of the Collective Agreement or the Consent Order with respect to numerous individual and group grievances.

The union agreed with this assessment.

Consequently, the Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievances.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued a final decision resolving the remaining outstanding strike-related grievances arising from the 2002 legal strike by OPSEU members.

The parties had previously agreed to an expedited dispute resolution protocol to handle approximately 4500 grievances.

As the major issues had already been litigated and decided, the parties agreed that the remaining matters would be decided without reasons.

The Vice-Chair provided a list of the remaining grievances and their respective dispositions, which included dismissals, monetary awards, and sick day credits.

The grievor filed a grievance alleging an improper application of the Collective Agreement, claiming he was moved to a new position prior to other staff and before all inmates were removed from his home institution.

He also alleged the move was motivated by anti-union animus.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the Employer had the right under the Memorandum of Agreement to move employees once the institution's inmates were gone, noting that the remaining inmates were from a different unit.

The Board also dismissed the claim of anti-union animus due to a lack of clear and cogent evidence.

The grievance was denied.

The grievor, an Industrial Officer 2, was temporarily assigned to work at a different correctional facility and was paid a mileage allowance for 40 kilometers per trip.

He filed a grievance alleging he was not paid proper mileage for the period of his temporary assignments.

The arbitrator found that under Article 13.1 of the collective agreement, the grievor was entitled to the difference between the actual kilometers he drove and the mileage allowance he received.

The grievance was allowed.

The Grievance Settlement Board heard preliminary issues regarding numerous grievances filed by employees of the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services following a reorganization announcement.

The grievances sought to reconsider previous Board decisions, nullify MERC agreements, or claimed violations that had not yet occurred.

The Vice-Chair directed the Union to review the recently filed grievances and notify the Board of its intention to proceed, noting that the Board does not reconsider its decisions and that the MERC agreements are binding.

During negotiations for a collective agreement, a large number of employees were absent from work due to alleged illness just prior to a potential strike.

The employer denied sick leave pay to many of these employees, suspecting an illegal strike or 'blue flu'.

The union grieved the denial of sick leave.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that the onus was on the employees to establish the legitimacy of their illness.

Given the mass absenteeism and the inadequacy of many medical certificates provided, the Board found that the majority of employees failed to discharge this onus and were not entitled to sick leave pay.

However, employees who provided adequate medical certificates or who received express assurances from management that a certificate would ensure payment were found entitled to sick leave.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued a clarification of a previous award dated January 27, 2005, regarding the home position of employees surplussed at the Rideau Correctional and Treatment Centre and assigned to St. Lawrence Valley.

The Vice-Chair corrected a transcription error in the previous decision where a letter sent to Brockville Jail employees was incorrectly cited instead of the letter sent to Rideau employees.

The clarification sets out the correct letter and confirms that the home position for these employees is the St. Lawrence Valley Correctional and Treatment Centre.

The Union filed a grievance alleging the Employer violated the collective agreement by failing to reimburse insulin pumps and supplies.

At the hearing, the parties agreed to adjourn the matter.

The Vice-Chair ordered the Employer to produce specific information regarding Manulife's past coverage, cost of claims, and direction letters related to insulin pumps and supplies.

The grievor, a Recreation Officer, filed multiple grievances arising from the restructuring and closure of provincial correctional institutions.

The grievances alleged unreasonable deployment, denial of travel expenses, bad faith negotiation, and failure to provide continuing employment opportunities.

The arbitrator dismissed the majority of the grievances, finding no violation of the collective agreement or the applicable Memoranda of Settlement.

However, the arbitrator upheld the grievance relating to the denial of an Employment Extension while the grievor was on parental leave, ordering the Employer to compensate the grievor for lost salary and benefits.

The Grievance Settlement Board was asked to determine the home position of certain correctional employees affected by the restructuring and decommissioning of provincial institutions.

The Vice-Chair ruled that employees who worked at the Rideau Correctional and Treatment Centre and either accepted a lateral transfer or were surplussed and assigned to the St. Lawrence Valley Correctional and Treatment Centre have St. Lawrence Valley as their home position, even if temporarily assigned elsewhere.

The employer brought a motion requesting that the Vice-Chair recuse herself from hearing a policy grievance due to a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The employer argued that the Vice-Chair's prior experience mediating and arbitrating disputes between the parties, and specifically her familiarity with the phrase 'removed from the table' in the context of joint committee meetings, created an apprehension of bias.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the motion, finding that in the context of labour arbitration, an adjudicator's prior knowledge and experience with the parties and their collective agreement does not, without more, give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias.

Following the August 2003 widespread power outage and subsequent provincial emergency, numerous grievances were filed regarding employee compensation and leave credits.

The parties agreed to a consent award establishing that the period was not a strike, lockout, or public holiday, and that employees requested not to report to work would be paid.

The Vice-Chair issued a decision dismissing several specific individual grievances from the Ministry of Finance and Ministry of Natural Resources without written reasons, as requested by the parties, and corrected a previous decision regarding one employee's vacation entitlement.

Following a previous decision where the local parties at the Maplehurst Complex were unsuccessful in resolving a scheduling issue, the Grievance Settlement Board ordered the MERC Implementation Committee to meet as soon as practicable to attempt to resolve the matter.

The Vice-Chair remained seized in the event the committee fails to resolve the issue.

The union filed a group grievance on behalf of correctional officers at the Metro West Detention Centre, claiming entitlement to travel time and mileage because another officer temporarily assigned there received such compensation.

The grievors also alleged they should have been moved to the new Vanier Centre for Women in accordance with overall seniority.

The arbitrator found no entitlement under the collective agreement for travel time and mileage for the grievors' work at Metro West.

The arbitrator also held that the employer had the right to determine reporting dates based on operational requirements and seniority.

The grievance was denied.

The parties sought clarification of a previous decision regarding the disposition of a grievance.

The Grievance Settlement Board reviewed the applicable Memoranda of Settlement and Appendix 13 regarding the relocation of operations beyond a 40-kilometre radius.

The Board clarified that the home position of the grievor is the Ontario Correctional Institute.

The Grievance Settlement Board held an expedited arbitration to resolve numerous outstanding strike-related grievances filed by union members following a legal strike in 2002.

The parties had agreed to a dispute resolution protocol to process the grievances efficiently without oral evidence.

Given the volume of grievances and time constraints, the Vice-Chair issued a summary decision disposing of the remaining individual grievances without detailed reasons, upholding some with specific hours or days owing and dismissing others.

The union filed grievances on behalf of correctional officers following the closure of the Whitby Jail, alleging the employer misrepresented relocation options by initially listing the Toronto Jail as being within a 40-kilometre radius.

After an independent GPS calculation determined the distance was 40.065 kilometres, the employer removed the Toronto Jail from the list of options.

The grievors sought travel time and mileage costs, claiming they might have made different relocation choices had they known the true distance.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievances, finding no evidence of bad faith by the employer and noting that the employer had simply complied with the union's request to recalculate the distance and remove the Toronto Jail from the list.

During a legal strike, correctional officers engaged in a work refusal.

Following an order to return to work, the employees reported but refused to enter the workplace after the employer barred previously suspended employees from entering.

The union filed a grievance seeking pay for the period the employees did not work.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that even if the employer had violated the return to work agreement, the employees were not entitled to issue an ultimatum and expect to be paid for hours they chose not to work.

The grievor, a correctional officer, sought relocation costs after obtaining a lateral transfer to the Central East Correctional Centre following the closure of his previous institution.

He argued that he was discriminated against because other officers who moved to the same facility received relocation costs.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the grievor arrived at the new facility via a lateral transfer under Article 6.6.1 of the collective agreement, which does not provide for relocation costs, unlike the provisions under which his co-workers were transferred.

The grievor, a Maintenance Mechanic III, filed a grievance alleging that his layoff notice violated the collective agreement and MERC agreements concerning conversions of unclassified staff.

The Employer had previously settled a grievance with another employee, assigning him to the only classified Maintenance Mechanic III position at the facility.

The arbitrator found that the other employee had more seniority than the grievor and was properly assigned the position in accordance with the collective agreement and the MERC Rollover Agreement.

The grievance was dismissed.