Felicity D. Briggs

The Union referred three grievances to the Grievance Settlement Board approximately 12 to 14 months after the time limit expired.

The Employer raised a preliminary objection regarding timeliness.

The Board declined to exercise its discretion under s. 48(16) of the Labour Relations Act to extend the time limits, finding the delay was substantial and the reasons proffered for the delay were insufficient.

The grievances were dismissed.

The parties agreed to consolidate the grievances of two Correctional Officers alleging violations of the collective agreement due to the Employer's Attendance Management Program.

Following the unexpected death of one of the grievors, the parties made submissions on how to proceed.

The Vice-Chair ordered that the deceased grievor's grievances be held in abeyance until the hearing for the other grievor is completed, at which point any outstanding issues could be addressed.

The parties engaged in a Med/Arb process to resolve outstanding overtime grievances at various correctional institutions.

Following hearings on multiple dates, the Vice-Chair issued a without-prejudice and without-reasons decision disposing of numerous grievances.

Several grievances were upheld with specific overtime hours awarded, while others were dismissed.

The union filed a policy grievance alleging the employer failed to deduct union dues for apprentices.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the grievance based on the doctrines of laches and abandonment, noting that apprentices had been excluded from the bargaining unit for approximately 50 years without union objection.

The arbitrator found that while the failure to deduct dues constituted a continuing grievance, the union's 50-year delay amounted to acquiescence.

Furthermore, the significant passage of time caused detriment to the employer, as it would be unable to proffer evidence or witnesses from historical bargaining sessions.

The preliminary motion was granted and the grievance was dismissed.

The union filed a group grievance on behalf of maintenance employees, alleging they had been performing higher-level duties and should be paid accordingly.

The employer raised a preliminary objection, arguing that the Grievance Settlement Board lacked jurisdiction to hear classification grievances.

The arbitrator agreed with the employer, finding no jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter, and dismissed the grievance.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of a fixed-term Cook 2 at the Toronto South Detention Centre, alleging he should have been rolled over to regular classified employee status at the time of the closing of the Toronto Jail.

The employer argued the grievor's previous contract was terminated for job abandonment and that he did not meet the required 2,856 hours of work for roll-over when vacancies were identified.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding no evidence that the grievor qualified for the roll-over under the criteria agreed upon by the parties.

The Union filed grievances alleging that the Employer violated a 2006 Transition Agreement by hiring new Registered Practical Nurses (RPNs) at the Central North Correctional Centre.

The Union argued that the agreement permanently capped the number of RPNs and required the hiring of Registered Nurses (RNs) instead.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievances, finding that the Transition Agreement was intended only to manage the initial transition from private to public operation and did not permanently fetter the Employer's management rights to determine the makeup of its workforce based on operational needs.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of a fixed-term correctional officer, alleging that the employer failed to include her sick time towards her hours of work for the purpose of rolling over to classified status.

The grievor sought to have her hours recalculated back to 2008.

The employer argued that employees are provided their hours during each roll-over process and have five days to challenge them, which the grievor failed to do until 2015.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, holding that the employer is entitled to rely on its calculations in the absence of a timely challenge, and that challenges are limited to hours worked since the last roll-over process.

The Union grieved that the Employer violated the Collective Agreement by denying compensating time off requested by Correctional Officers more than one month in advance.

The Employer conceded the denials occurred but argued they were necessary due to operational requirements.

The arbitrator found that the relevant provision of the Collective Agreement was not subject to operational requirements and declared a breach, but denied the grievors' requests for compensation and additional time off.

The grievor, a Psychologist 2 at Thistletown Regional Centre, filed a grievance alleging he should be classified as a Psychologist 2 at the Toronto South Detention Centre following a cross-ministry transfer.

The employer argued that the Cross-Ministry Agreement explicitly stated the position offered was a Psychologist 1, and that subsequent correspondence referring to a Psychologist 2 position was a typographical error.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that errors in individual communications cannot alter the express terms of agreements made between the parties.

The grievor, a Correctional Officer, received a letter of warning following an incident in the maximum area of the Quinte Detention Centre.

The union grieved the discipline through an expedited mediation-arbitration process.

The Grievance Settlement Board upheld the grievance, finding that the employer failed to discharge its onus to show just cause for disciplining the grievor, and ordered the letter of warning removed from his file.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of a correctional officer, alleging the employer violated the protocol for assigning community escort duties.

The grievor had the highest number of escort hours and argued he should have been assigned to the Admission and Discharge area instead.

The employer maintained that the assignment of escort duties is subject to local operational needs, and it was not feasible to assign the grievor to Admission and Discharge on a busy day due to his lack of recent experience in that area.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, concluding that the employer's operational needs necessitated the assignment.

The grievor, a Probation Officer II, alleged that the Employer violated the collective agreement by failing to convert her to classified status after she performed the same work in the same region for over eighteen consecutive months.

The Employer argued that a Memorandum of Agreement signed by the parties waived the conversion entitlements for Probation Officers for the duration of the collective agreement in exchange for a new roll-over process.

The Grievance Settlement Board found no violation of the collective agreement, noting the waiver was valid and the grievor had already been rolled over to classified status under the new process.

The grievance was dismissed.

The grievor, a fixed-term Youth Services Officer, applied for and accepted a position as a fixed-term Correctional Officer.

She filed grievances alleging she was incorrectly required to take Correctional Officer training and should have been placed higher on the salary grid rather than at the start rate.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievances, finding that the job posting clearly required the training and set out the salary rate.

The Board noted that because the grievor obtained the position through the normal job posting process rather than a MERC agreement, the usual Collective Agreement provisions applied.

The grievor, a Correctional Officer, alleged that his Continuous Service Date was incorrect, claiming he worked hours as an unclassified employee that should have been counted.

The union could not provide a copy of the original grievance or any accompanying documents to support the claim.

The employer had no records for the time period but asserted the hours would have been accounted for at the time of his roll-over to classified status.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance due to a lack of documentary evidence.

Two Correctional Officers filed grievances alleging that after their status changed to classified, their benefits were not activated for a month and they were not paid any monies in lieu of fringe benefits during this time.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievances, finding that the benefit provider's policy requires a waiting period until the beginning of the month following a change to full-time regular status, and there is no provision in the Collective Agreement allowing for a percentage in lieu of fringe benefits for full-time employees.

Following a merits decision where the matter of damages was remitted to the parties, the parties were unable to agree.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued a supplemental decision ordering the Employer to pay the Union $3,000 in damages, with the Union to determine the dispersion of the funds.

The decision was issued without precedent or prejudice pursuant to Article 22.16.

The Union filed a grievance alleging the Employer violated the Collective Agreement and privacy legislation by inadvertently posting employees' WSIB information on a public drive accessible to all staff.

The Employer argued that FIPPA did not apply due to the labour and employment exception in s. 65(6).

The arbitrator found that the exception did not apply to statutory WSIB entitlements and that the inadvertent disclosure constituted a breach of FIPPA.

The grievance was upheld and damages were ordered for the affected employees.

The parties engaged in a med-arb process to resolve outstanding overtime grievances at various correctional institutions.

Following several conference calls, the Vice-Chair issued a without-prejudice decision without reasons, detailing the disposition of numerous individual overtime grievances.

Several grievances were allowed with specific hours of overtime awarded, while others were dismissed.

The grievor filed four grievances alleging the Employer violated the Collective Agreement upon his return from a secondment by failing to provide two weeks' notice, return him to his selected post, re-enter him in the overtime protocol, and allow a shift switch for paid holidays.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievances, accepting the Employer's explanations that the grievor had prior notice, his post delay was due to an accommodation and lapsed training, the shift switch was impossible because the co-worker already had the time off, and the grievor actually worked above-average overtime hours.