Felicity D. Briggs

The grievor, a classified Correctional Officer, filed a grievance alleging her Continuous Service Date was incorrect.

The Employer raised a preliminary objection that the grievance was filed outside the time limits set in the Collective Agreement, arguing that grievances should have been filed in 2009 and 2010 when the alleged scheduling issues occurred.

The Board upheld the Employer's objection and dismissed the grievance as out of time.

The Union brought a preliminary motion requesting that a group grievance and a separate Union grievance be consolidated with two other grievances scheduled to be heard by the same Vice-Chair at a later date.

The grievances generally related to alleged breaches of confidentiality regarding medical information and WSIB claims posted on a shared computer drive.

The Employer opposed the consolidation, arguing the facts and law were dissimilar and that the request should be made to the Board seated for the future hearing.

The Vice-Chair declined to grant the consolidation order at this time, noting that the formal hearing for the other matters had not yet commenced and the specific questions to be posed were not yet agreed upon.

The dismissal was without prejudice to the Union raising the request before the Board seated to hear the other matters.

The union filed five grievances on behalf of a correctional officer through an expedited mediation-arbitration process.

The grievances challenged a five-day suspension, sought compensation for missed overtime and statutory holidays during a prior paid suspension, alleged harassment by management, and claimed a right to union representation when writing incident reports.

The arbitrator dismissed the claims for missed overtime and holidays, and found no right to union representation for incident reports.

The arbitrator declared management's comments inappropriate but ordered no remedy.

The five-day suspension was found to be too harsh and was reduced to three days, with compensation ordered for the difference.

Three grievances were filed alleging a poisoned work environment and violations of the WDHP policy following an incident at a correctional facility.

The parties participated in an expedited mediation-arbitration process.

The arbitrator found that the only resolution that would truly benefit the grievors on an ongoing basis was workplace mediation.

The employer was ordered to retain the services of an external mediator to facilitate mandatory mediation between the grievors.

The grievor, a correctional officer, filed grievances alleging her health and safety was put at risk by having to work with an accommodated coworker.

She sought various remedies including $500,000 for pain and suffering and full health benefits for life.

The Grievance Settlement Board, issuing a decision without reasons pursuant to an expedited mediation-arbitration protocol, found no violation of the collective agreement's health and safety provisions.

The Board concluded there was no evidence of any risk to the grievor or inmates resulting from the accommodated coworker's presence, and dismissed the grievances.

The grievor, a Correctional Officer 2 (CO2) with thirty years of service, filed a grievance alleging the employer violated the collective agreement by failing to progress him to the CO3 wage grid.

The matter proceeded through an expedited mediation-arbitration process.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that the Grievance Settlement Board lacks jurisdiction to entertain classification grievances.

The union filed grievances alleging the employer inappropriately applied the Attendance Support and Management Program Policy (ASMPP) by failing to accommodate the grievor's personal circumstances and by dealing with him in an untimely fashion.

The grievor sought to have his sick time removed from his record, among other remedies.

The arbitrator found that the employer failed to follow its policy timelines, noting a thirteen-month delay in notifying the grievor of his progression through the ASMPP levels.

However, the arbitrator held that the grievor remained responsible for monitoring his own sick leave and that the employer had accommodated him by granting compassionate days.

The arbitrator issued a declaration that the employer did not follow its policy regarding the timing of notice and meetings, but denied the other requested remedies.

The union filed a grievance alleging the employer violated the collective agreement by asserting that Schedule D of Appendix 18 applied to its Request for Proposal (RFP) for desktop and field services.

The employer intended to issue an RFP to external service providers for functions currently performed by bargaining unit employees.

The employer placed the transfer under Schedule D, arguing that less than eleven full-time bargaining unit related jobs would be created in any one municipality by the receiving organization.

The union argued that the total number of jobs across all municipalities or including support staff would exceed the threshold.

The Grievance Settlement Board accepted the employer's analysis that at most ten positions would be created in Toronto, and dismissed the grievance, finding the placement on Schedule D was appropriate.

The grievor, a correctional officer, grieved a 10-day suspension and a non-disciplinary transfer imposed after he allegedly showed a naked photograph of a female co-worker to another employee.

The union argued the grievor showed a picture of a different woman and that the co-worker fabricated the story.

The arbitrator resolved the factual dispute in favour of the employer, finding the co-worker's evidence more credible and that the grievor did show the complainant's picture.

The grievance was denied, upholding the suspension and transfer.

The union filed two grievances on behalf of a correctional officer.

The first grievance alleged a breach of a 2008 settlement agreement regarding notification of available positions.

The arbitrator dismissed this grievance as untimely, as it was filed almost three years after the employer's obligation expired.

The second grievance challenged a three-day suspension for an incident in January 2014.

The arbitrator found just cause for discipline based on the evidence but reduced the suspension to two days, noting the grievor's previously discipline-free record.

Several employees at the Bluewater Youth Centre filed grievances regarding their redeployment options.

They had made elections based on the Ministry's announcement that the Sarnia Jail would be closing.

When the Ministry later reversed its decision and kept the Sarnia Jail open, the grievors sought to change their elections, alleging they were misled.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievances, finding no bad faith by the Ministry and concluding that allowing new elections due to unforeseen changes in circumstance would cause administrative chaos.

The union grieved on behalf of a correctional officer, arguing that all hours he worked as a fixed-term employee should be counted for the purposes of calculating his continuous service date, regardless of whether they fell short of 40 hours in a particular week.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the terms for calculating the continuous service date are set out clearly in the collective agreement and there was no violation.

The grievor, a Youth Worker, alleged that his continuous service date (CSD) was improperly calculated, causing him to miss out on one of eight transitional job trades to the Sudbury Jail.

He sought full redress including $3,700 for travel time and mileage.

The Employer recalculated the grievor's CSD and found an error, but also recalculated the CSD of the eighth person on the list.

The recalculation revealed that the grievor still ranked ninth.

The grievance was dismissed.

A med-arb session was held to resolve outstanding overtime grievances between the union and the employer.

Pursuant to a Memorandum of Agreement, the Vice-Chair issued a decision without reasons or prejudice, disposing of numerous individual grievances by either dismissing them or allowing them with specific hours of overtime awarded.

The grievor filed a grievance alleging the Employer violated its relocation policy by failing to reimburse him for certain legal expenses.

The Employer raised a preliminary objection regarding the timeliness of the grievance, noting the denial of expenses occurred in March 2012 but the grievance was not filed until February 2013.

The grievor alleged the delay was due to poor health, but the provided medical documentation did not substantiate an illness that would explain the delay.

The Grievance Settlement Board upheld the Employer's preliminary objection and dismissed the grievance as out of time.

The grievor, a fixed-term Correctional Officer, sought to be rolled over into classified status at her home institution following a temporary assignment elsewhere.

The roll-over agreement required continuous employment at the home institution for one year prior to signing.

Because the grievor had not been continually employed at the home institution for a full year prior to the roll-over exercise, the grievance was denied.

The grievor, a union president, filed two grievances.

The first alleged unjust discipline arising from a letter ordering him to attend an allegation meeting after he refused to name bargaining unit members he saw smoking in the workplace.

The second alleged the Employer violated the collective agreement by failing to promptly notify him that he was named as a respondent in a workplace harassment complaint.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed both grievances.

The Board found the letter was non-disciplinary in nature, though it ordered one problematic paragraph removed.

Regarding the harassment complaint, the Board found no evidence that the delay in notification caused any risk or harm to the grievor.

The union filed a grievance alleging that the employer contravened Appendix 32 of the Collective Agreement by recovering deficit hours before paying overtime to a flexible part-time employee.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that paragraph 3(g) of Appendix 32 clearly and unambiguously provides that deficit hours are to be recovered from any hours worked above the weekly threshold before any overtime is paid.

The grievor, a Correctional Officer, was suspended for five days for excessive use of force against an inmate and failing to submit an accurate report.

The incident was captured on video.

The union grieved the suspension, arguing the grievor's actions were appropriate to settle an abusive inmate.

The Grievance Settlement Board reviewed the video and documentary evidence, finding the grievor's version of events inconsistent with the video.

The Board concluded the grievor inappropriately pushed or poked the inmate and attempted to intimidate rather than settle him.

The grievance was dismissed and the five-day suspension upheld.

The grievor, a Correctional Officer, filed a grievance alleging violations of Articles 2 and 9 of the Collective Agreement.

The grievor argued that management allowed unnecessary accommodations within the institution, resulting in un-accommodated staff being overused or misused in the assignment of work.

The Grievance Settlement Board heard the matter through an Expedited Mediation-Arbitration process.

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