Felicity D. Briggs

The grievor, a fixed-term Cook 2, was reclassified to Helper - Food Services.

A MERC agreement provided that regular Cook 2s would have their wages red-circled, but this did not apply to fixed-term employees.

The grievor was later rolled over into classified status by agreement.

She grieved that if the Employer had processed her roll-over more efficiently, she would have been classified when the MERC agreement was signed and thus entitled to red-circling.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding no violation of the Collective Agreement or any MERC agreement.

The grievor, a correctional officer, alleged he was improperly denied a lateral transfer and discriminated against on the basis of race when a white officer was allowed to remain at the closing Toronto Jail before transferring, while the grievor was moved to a new facility.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the grievor had previously declined a lateral transfer and removed himself from the list, only reapplying after the relevant positions were filled by more senior officers.

The white officer's delayed transfer was the result of a subsequent Memorandum of Agreement based on seniority and operational need.

The grievance was denied as there was no violation of the collective agreement or evidence of discrimination.

The grievor, a Cook 3 at a correctional centre, filed a grievance alleging the employer violated the collective agreement by creating and filling a Cook 3 position that had been backfilled for two years.

The grievor requested the employer fully fund the position and roll over current staff to reflect the need for three classified Cook 3 positions.

The employer stated there was no plan to surplus any Cook 3 positions and the overage would be dealt with by attrition.

The arbitrator found no violation of the collective agreement and dismissed the grievance.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of a fixed-term medical clerk who claimed she should have been converted to a full-time classified position after working in the same role for over 18 months.

The employer had decided to make the position full-time and posted it after the grievor had worked for 13 months, simultaneously giving her notice of termination.

Although her contract was subsequently extended so that she worked a total of 18 months, she applied for the posted position and was unsuccessful.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the employer exercised its management rights appropriately by posting the position before the grievor reached the conversion threshold, and the subsequent contract extension did not entitle her to automatic conversion.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of a probation officer who entered into a job trade agreement with another officer.

The other officer was subsequently granted a Transition Exit Initiative (TEI).

The employer refused to honour the job trade agreement, arguing the grievor knew of the impending TEI.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the job trade could not be implemented because one of the officers was granted a TEI, and the manager's approval of the agreement was a mistake.

The union grieved that the employer was vicariously liable for a co-worker's unauthorized access to the grievor's Employment Insurance file, constituting an intrusion upon seclusion.

The arbitrator found that while the board had jurisdiction to hear the matter under the collective agreement and FIPPA, the employer was not vicariously liable.

The rogue employee's actions were not sufficiently related to authorized conduct, and the employer had adequate privacy policies in place.

The grievor, represented by the Union, alleged that she was subjected to relentless bullying and harassment by her managers and coworkers, which caused her to take an extended sick leave.

She sought damages, sick and vacation credits, and a transfer.

The Employer denied the allegations, asserting that the grievor was being performance managed and that her subjective feelings of mistreatment were not supported by objective evidence.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the Employer's actions, including requesting medical information and managing her performance, were reasonable and did not constitute harassment or bullying.

The grievor filed a grievance alleging that his supervisor improperly assigned work contrary to usual practice and policy, and threatened him by telling him to 'watch' him.

The matter proceeded through an Expedited Mediation-Arbitration process.

The Grievance Settlement Board found no violation of the Collective Agreement, noting that the grievor was not disciplined and that the supervisor's direction and comments were not improper or threatening.

The grievance was denied.

The grievor, a Correctional Officer, filed a grievance alleging that the Employer violated the collective agreement by allowing bargaining unit members in acting management positions to receive compensating leave for overtime, while denying the same to other bargaining unit members.

The grievor refused to attend the expedited mediation-arbitration session.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the collective agreement requires mutual agreement for compensating time off, and the Employer's refusal to agree did not constitute a violation or discrimination based on union affiliation.

The grievor, a nurse at a correctional facility, grieved that she was verbally assaulted by an Operational Manager and that her health and safety rights were violated when the manager allowed an unsearched, angry member of the public into the secure health care office.

The Grievance Settlement Board upheld the grievance, finding that the manager's out-of-control behaviour and breach of security protocols constituted a verbal assault and a severe violation of the grievor's health and safety rights.

The Board accepted medical evidence that the incident caused the grievor to suffer complex Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and remitted the quantum of damages to the parties for agreement.

The grievor, a Correctional Officer, filed a grievance alleging that the Employer's accommodation of disabled employees violated his health and safety rights and created a poisoned work environment.

The grievor argued that accommodated employees with no inmate contact were bumping regular employees out of positions and forcing them to do more work.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, noting that the Employer is legally obligated to accommodate disabled employees to the point of undue hardship.

The Board found no evidence of an unsafe work environment and noted the grievance was presented as a matter of principle rather than based on a specific incident.

The Union filed numerous grievances alleging that the Employer violated the Collective Agreement, the Provincial Overtime Protocol, and various statutes by assigning Community Escort Duty to non-bargaining unit personnel, such as local police, instead of trained Correctional Officers.

The grievors argued this deprived them of overtime and other compensation.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievances, finding no violation of any statute or policy, and relying on a previous Board decision which held that the Employer is not obligated to complete an all-call before assigning community escorts to outside personnel.

The union filed grievances on behalf of two correctional officers alleging the employer violated the collective agreement through its application of the Attendance Support Management Program and improper use of confidential medical information.

Following unsuccessful mediation, the union requested an interim order regarding the storage of the grievors' medical files pending litigation.

The Grievance Settlement Board granted the interim order, directing the employer to store the medical files in a locked cabinet with restricted access, and ordered the parties to proceed with scheduling the litigation of the first grievance.

The grievor, an Administrative Support Worker seconded to a Probation and Parole Officer position, filed a grievance alleging she was improperly denied a roll-over opportunity to a permanent position.

The union also alleged the employer's failure to implement diversity initiatives constituted discrimination under the Human Rights Code.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the roll-over process agreed upon by the parties did not violate the collective agreement and that there was insufficient evidence to support a finding of discrimination.

The grievor alleged that the employer and the Ontario Pension Trustees discriminated against him based on age by denying him the ability to retire without penalty at 80 points because he had not yet reached age 60.

The employer argued that the Human Rights Code contains a specific exception for pension plans that comply with the Employment Standards Act.

The arbitrator agreed with the employer, finding no violation of the Human Rights Code or other legislation, and dismissed the grievance.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of the employee regarding the calculation of his Continuous Service Date.

The employer argued that the matter was res judicata, as the Grievance Settlement Board had previously issued a decision on June 12, 2014, dismissing identical grievances filed by the same employee.

The Board agreed that the grievance involved the same issue between the same parties under the same collective agreement, and dismissed the grievance on the basis of res judicata.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of a fixed-term Correctional Officer, alleging the employer violated a Ministry Employment Relations Committee (MERC) agreement regarding the filling of vacancies.

The grievor claimed the employer improperly filled positions via lateral transfers instead of rolling over fixed-term staff to regular status, which would have resulted in his rollover.

The Grievance Settlement Board reviewed the documents and found that three fixed-term officers were rolled over and no lateral transfers occurred.

The grievance was dismissed.

The grievor, a fixed-term Probation and Parole Officer, alleged he should have been rolled-over into a permanent full-time position under a Memorandum of Agreement.

The Employer posted an expression of interest for positions in London, St. Thomas, and Windsor, but the grievor lived in Brampton, outside the 125-kilometer search area.

The Union argued the Employer should have exercised its discretion to extend the search area.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that while the Employer had the discretion to extend the search area, it was not obliged to do so, and its failure to do so did not violate the Memorandum of Agreement.

The grievor, a Court Services Officer, filed a grievance claiming he was entitled to stand-by pay for several overnight shifts that were cancelled shortly before they were scheduled to begin.

The union argued that the grievor met the criteria for stand-by pay under the collective agreement.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding no evidence that the grievor was authorized in writing or expressly advised by a supervisor that he was being assigned stand-by duty, which was a mandatory requirement under the collective agreement.

A med-arb session was held to resolve outstanding overtime grievances from the Toronto East Detention Centre, pursuant to a Memorandum of Agreement between the parties.

The Vice-Chair issued a without-prejudice and without-reasons decision disposing of numerous grievances, allowing some with specific hours of overtime to be paid and dismissing others.