Felicity D. Briggs

The grievor, a Correctional Officer, resigned her classified position in 2008 and immediately began working as an unclassified officer.

In 2016, she was rolled over into classified status and filed a grievance alleging her continuous service date was incorrect, arguing she should have been accommodated for family status in 2008 instead of resigning.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the grievor did not request an accommodation at the time and could not retroactively withdraw her resignation eight years later.

The Board affirmed that seniority accumulated during earlier service is not taken into account when an employee resigns.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of a fixed-term Correctional Officer who argued that her hours worked in previous regular classified positions should be included in the calculation of her hours for the purpose of roll-overs to regular classified employee status.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding nothing in the Collective Agreement or other agreements that entitled the grievor to have hours from other regular classified positions applied to her newly obtained fixed-term position.

The grievor, a Maintenance Mechanic, filed a grievance alleging the employer incorrectly applied his transition and relocation rights following the closure of the Toronto Jail, resulting in his assignment to a facility outside the usual 120-kilometer radius.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the grievor had signed an election for a lateral transfer listing four preferred institutions, and was permanently assigned to his fourth choice.

The Board concluded there was no violation of the collective agreement or any other agreement, as the assignment was based on the grievor's own specified choices and was final and binding.

The grievance was dismissed.

The grievor, a fixed-term Correctional Officer at the Thunder Bay Jail, filed a grievance alleging that her conversion to full-time classified status was unnecessarily delayed in violation of the collective agreement.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the grievor was ineligible for earlier roll-overs because she had not been employed at the facility for the required one-year period, and later because she had insufficient hours compared to others.

When she finally met the eligibility criteria, she was rolled over without undue delay.

The grievance was dismissed.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of a fixed-term correctional officer, disputing the calculation of her hours for the purpose of rolling over into a classified position.

The grievor alleged that her posted hours were missing 360.3 hours.

After reviewing the documents and medical information provided, the Grievance Settlement Board determined that the grievor should have received an additional 299.68 hours.

The grievance was upheld to that extent.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of a Cook 2 employee who was reclassified to Helper, Food Services and subsequently denied a lateral transfer to a Cook 2 vacancy at another facility.

The union argued that a Memorandum of Agreement required the employer to consider reclassified employees for lateral transfers.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the agreement did not restrict the employer's management right to fill the vacancy through a job competition rather than utilizing the lateral transfer list.

The grievor, a Regular Part Time Cook 2, filed a grievance alleging the employer failed to convert her to full time classified status.

The grievor had been backfilling a full time position temporarily.

The employer argued she was not eligible for conversion because she was already a regular part time classified employee.

Furthermore, when the permanent position was posted, the grievor applied but refused to participate fully in the interview process.

The Grievance Settlement Board agreed with the employer, finding no violation of the collective agreement, and dismissed the grievance.

The grievor, a classified Personnel Clerk, took a leave of absence to complete Correctional Officer training and was subsequently hired as a fixed-term Correctional Officer.

He filed grievances claiming entitlement to classified status based on his prior service, reimbursement for training costs, and the right to hold both positions concurrently.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievances, finding no collective agreement provision entitling him to paid training or transfer of service/seniority to the new position, and noting the Board lacked jurisdiction to review the Employer's refusal to permit dual employment.

The grievor, a classified Correctional Officer at Toronto East Detention Centre, filed a grievance alleging that the Employer violated the Collective Agreement by not approving his transfer request to Central East Correctional Centre (CECC).

He argued that CECC was hiring new casual staff and transferring existing casual staff from TEDC to CECC while ignoring his seniority and lateral transfer request.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the grievor was not the most senior on the CECC Lateral Transfer List and that the transfer of fixed-term contracts from one institution to another had no effect on the Lateral Transfer List of classified Correctional Officers.

The grievance was dismissed.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of a fixed-term Youth Service Officer, alleging the employer improperly calculated her hours while she was absent due to a WSIB injury, which allegedly caused her to miss being rolled over into classified status.

At a med/arb session, the employer conceded it used the wrong formula to calculate the hours, but demonstrated that the incorrect formula actually placed the grievor in a more favourable position.

The arbitrator declared that the employer improperly calculated the hours but declined to order a recalculation, as the grievor had already been rolled over into a full-time classified position based on the inflated hours.

The grievance was upheld to the extent of the declaration.

The grievor, a fixed-term Youth Services Officer, filed a grievance alleging discrimination in work scheduling due to her pregnancy, claiming her shifts were frequently cancelled while other pregnant officers did not face cancellations.

The Employer demonstrated that the other pregnant officers were classified officers and that the grievor required more extensive accommodation.

The Vice-Chair found no violation of the Collective Agreement and dismissed the grievance.

The union filed a grievance alleging that the grievor, a Cook 2, was improperly denied an overtime opportunity in December 2014.

The matter was heard at a med/arb session.

The arbitrator found that while the scheduling manager initially made an error regarding the scheduling of the overtime, the manager made all appropriate efforts in a timely fashion and scheduled the overtime in accordance with HPRO.

The grievance was dismissed.

The grievor, a Cook 2, filed a grievance regarding overtime.

A med/arb session was held, but the grievor did not attend and the union had no facts regarding the matter.

The employer requested that the grievance be dismissed due to the lack of attendance and information.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance.

Three Correctional Officers filed grievances alleging the Employer violated MERC agreements by failing to roll them over into classified status.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that two of the grievors did not reply to the Expression of Interest and the third applied beyond the closing date.

As they were not eligible for the roll-over at that time, the grievances were dismissed.

The union filed grievances alleging that the grievor was harassed and discriminated against for her union activity, and that she received a letter of warning without just cause.

Following a med/arb session, the Grievance Settlement Board found that the letter of warning was without just cause because the conduct at issue occurred while the grievor was acting in her union capacity.

The Board ordered the letter removed forthwith.

For the harassment grievance, the Board ordered the employer to provide and pay for a mediator to assist the grievor and her supervisor in improving their working relationship.

The grievances were upheld.

The grievor, a fixed-term Correctional Officer, applied for and accepted a full-time classified position at Bell Cairn.

Subsequently, a rollover exercise was completed at her previous location, Maplehurst Correctional Centre, but she was not rolled over.

The union grieved the denial.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that at the time of the rollovers, the grievor was already classified with a home position at Bell Cairn and was therefore ineligible for rollover.

During mediation of a grievance regarding the denial of Long Term Income Protection (LTIP) benefits, it became apparent that the Union possessed medical documents not yet shared with the insurer or the Employer.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the Union to provide the undisclosed medical information, including clinical notes, to the insurer.

The matter was remitted to the Joint Insurance Benefits Review Committee, with the Employer reserving the right to argue the weight of the new information.

The grievor, a Youth Services Worker, was suspended for ten days following an incident at Brookside Youth Centre.

The union argued the incident resulted from the grievor exercising his right to refuse work due to health and safety concerns.

The arbitrator found that the grievor did not raise health and safety concerns at the time, but rather complained about the employer's failure to replace kitchen staff.

While the employer had just cause for discipline, the ten-day suspension was deemed excessive given the grievor's long service and clean disciplinary record.

The suspension was reduced to four days.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued a supplementary decision regarding the interpretation of a Memorandum of Agreement on compressed work weeks at the Elgin Middlesex Detention Centre.

The Union sought clarification on whether the Employer was required to backfill positions when a Correctional Officer was absent for a portion of their shift, and whether accommodated officers counted towards the 147 required positions.

The Board held that the Employer must make reasonable efforts to backfill significant absences, but not short, last-minute absences.

The Board also clarified that accommodated officers count towards the 147 positions only if they are working in a Correctional Officer position.

During a grievance arbitration regarding the grievor's termination, the Employer sought to introduce Letters of Counsel and emails previously given to the grievor to show he was aware of performance expectations.

The Union objected, arguing the documents were disclosed late, were stale-dated, and contained highly prejudicial, unproven facts.

The Vice-Chair balanced the probative value against the prejudice to the grievor and ruled that redacted versions of the documents, which removed the specific factual background but retained the performance expectations, would be admitted into evidence for that limited purpose.