Felicity D. Briggs

The Union filed a grievance on behalf of a correctional officer who was working under an accommodation agreement limiting her shifts to eight hours.

During a legal strike, the grievor completed her eight-hour shift but was not relieved because no bargaining unit members were available.

The Union alleged the failure to relieve her was malicious and sought damages.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding no evidence of malicious intent or harm to the grievor, noting the incident occurred early in the strike before the Employer had established alternative arrangements.

The Union filed a strike-related grievance alleging that the ratio of classified to unclassified staff at the Quinte Detention Centre should have been maintained for each and every shift worked during the strike.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, noting there was no dispute between the parties that the ratio was to be maintained over the period of the scheduling rotation.

During a legal strike, two essential workers who insisted on receiving manual paycheques rather than direct deposit experienced a one-week delay in receiving their pay.

The union filed a grievance alleging a violation of the collective agreement.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the delay was an inadvertent administrative error and not unreasonable given that the payroll department was not considered an essential service during the strike.

The grievor, a correctional officer on an educational leave of absence, filed a grievance alleging he was improperly denied the opportunity to be included on the essential service list during a legal strike.

The grievor had informed management he was able to return to work during the strike but was unsure of his availability after its conclusion.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, applying a prior arbitration decision which held that employees currently on a leave of absence shall not be placed on the eligibility list.

Following a legal strike in 2002, the parties negotiated a Return to Work Protocol and a Dispute Resolution Protocol to address thousands of strike-related grievances.

The grievor, a Correctional Officer, filed a grievance regarding the balancing of hours after returning to a compressed work week schedule.

The parties had previously entered into a Memorandum of Settlement requiring local Union and management to meet at the Employee Relations Committee (ERC) to discuss balancing hours.

As the parties could not confirm whether such a meeting had occurred at the grievor's institution, the Vice-Chair ordered the local Union and management to hold an ERC meeting within 60 days to discuss the issue, with the resulting decision to apply to all employees within the facility.

A group grievance was filed by correctional officers from the Burtch Correctional Centre alleging that the employer violated the collective agreement and the MERC agreement by sending inmates to institutions other than the Central North Correctional Centre (CNCC).

The union sought $10,000 per grievor.

The arbitrator found that all inmates from Burtch were initially transferred to CNCC as required, and any subsequent transfer of inmates from CNCC did not violate the collective agreement, the MERC agreement, or a prior arbitration order.

The grievance was denied.

The union filed a grievance concerning the appropriate work location of an unclassified Correctional Officer for the purposes of rollover eligibility during a period of institutional restructuring.

The grievor had accepted a temporary opportunity at the Toronto Jail and was receiving an expense stipend, but her unclassified contract on the eligibility date was with the Toronto Jail.

The Grievance Settlement Board determined that the receipt of a travel stipend was irrelevant and that her work location for the purpose of determining her employment location under the transition agreement was the Toronto Jail.

The grievor, a classified 24-hour regular part-time employee, filed a grievance alleging she should have been converted to a full-time classified employee because she had consistently worked full-time hours since June 1, 2002.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that there was nothing in the collective agreement that would allow for the grievor's conversion to full-time classified status, noting she had not competed for and won a temporary assignment as a full-time employee.

The grievance was denied.

The union filed a grievance regarding the implementation of a Memorandum of Settlement (MERC 1) concerning the restructuring of correctional facilities.

The MERC agreement provided for the rollover of three unclassified Correctional Officers at the Sudbury Jail into classified positions.

Prior to this, the local parties had signed an agreement resolving individual grievances for two officers, appointing them to classified positions.

The employer argued these two positions should be counted towards the three MERC rollovers.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that the local grievance settlements were separate from the MERC agreement, and therefore three positions must be rolled over in addition to the two positions granted under the local agreement.

The Union filed a grievance alleging the Employer failed to properly implement pay for performance bonuses and merit pay increases.

The parties settled most issues but disagreed on whether employees on pregnancy or parental leave should receive unprorated pay for performance bonuses, and whether a clarity note regarding leaves of absence greater than three months was ambiguous.

The arbitrator determined she had the jurisdiction of a rights arbitrator, found no ambiguity in the clarity note, and held that the pay for performance bonus is a work-driven benefit that requires attendance.

Consequently, the Employer was entitled to prorate the bonus for employees absent on pregnancy or parental leave.

The grievor, an unclassified records clerk, grieved the non-renewal of her contract, arguing she should have been converted to classified status because most of her hours were 'convertible' hours.

She also alleged discrimination for exercising her rights under the collective agreement.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, noting there was no substantiating evidence of discrimination and the union conceded that her total convertible hours were insufficient for conversion.

The grievor, an unclassified Correctional Officer, filed a grievance alleging that the employer failed to create 13 new positions at the Maplehurst Complex to be offered to converted casuals, in accordance with an August 29, 1999 Memorandum of Settlement.

The grievance arose in the context of the restructuring and decommissioning of provincial correctional institutions.

The Grievance Settlement Board found no violation of the collective agreement and dismissed the grievance.

The grievor, a Correctional Officer, filed a grievance alleging she was treated differently than other employees regarding job trades and temporary assignments during a facility restructuring.

The grievor had been surplussed and opted for an assignment at the Stratford Jail prior to a subsequent memorandum of settlement that allowed surplussed employees without new assignments to be placed at the Brantford Jail.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that while the grievor was treated differently, she was not covered by the subsequent agreement because she had already elected to take a new position.

The grievance was denied.

The union filed a group grievance on behalf of sixteen correctional officers alleging the employer failed to follow the seniority provisions of a Memorandum of Settlement regarding staff transfers to the new Women's Institution in Milton.

The grievors argued they should have been assigned to begin work prior to junior employees transferring from the closing Vanier Centre for Women.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding nothing in the Memorandum that obliged the employer to assign the grievors to the new institution prior to the Vanier employees.

The union filed grievances alleging that the employer breached the collective agreement and Memoranda of Settlement regarding the restructuring and closure of correctional facilities.

The grievors claimed entitlement to Article 20 positions that became vacant after the common surplus date.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievances, finding nothing in the agreement obliging the employer to fill Article 20 positions that became vacant after the common surplus date.

The grievor, a correctional officer, filed grievances alleging he was improperly denied a job trade and lateral transfer, claiming age discrimination and a violation of his rights under the collective agreement.

The Grievance Settlement Board found no evidence of discrimination and noted the grievor failed to follow the proper process for a job trade.

The Board further held that lateral transfers under the collective agreement are discretionary, not an absolute right.

Finding no violation of the collective agreement or the related Memorandum of Settlement, the Board denied the grievances.

The union filed grievances alleging that the Ministry's decision to close the Burtch Correctional Centre was motivated by anti-union animus and perceived attendance problems.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the grievances, noting that a prior decision by Vice-Chair Richard Brown had already determined various matters regarding the RFP process at the Centre and disposed of the assertions of discrimination.

The union filed grievances on behalf of three correctional officers alleging that the employer failed to follow the procedures for posting and filling vacancies under Article 6 of the collective agreement when it assigned surplussed employees from Sprucedale to the Brantford Jail.

The arbitrator found that the assignment was made to provide employment opportunities to employees who had not yet received an assignment under Article 20, which had priority under Article 6.6.2.

The arbitrator concluded there was no violation of the collective agreement and dismissed the grievances.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of an employee who alleged he was treated differently from other employees at the Burtch Correctional Centre when the facility closed.

The employee sought to be temporarily assigned to a work position within reasonable commuting distance.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the employee was treated differently because, unlike others at the centre, he was an employee of another facility on a temporary work assignment.

The Board concluded that the employee was treated in accordance with the terms and conditions agreed to by the parties in their restructuring memoranda.

The grievance was dismissed.

The grievor, a correctional officer, filed grievances related to the restructuring and closure of provincial correctional institutions.

He alleged he was improperly denied a job trade request and that the employer failed to provide him with updated information regarding transition options.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievances, finding that the job trade was properly denied because the other officer had elected a Voluntary Exit Option and matched with a more senior employee.

Furthermore, once the grievor elected to take a severance package under the collective agreement, the employer had no further obligation to apprise him of changing transition plans.