Felicity D. Briggs

At the outset of a hearing regarding a grievance over a displacement opportunity following a layoff, the Union raised a preliminary issue requesting that the Employer be ordered to proceed first with its evidence.

The Union argued this would be more efficient and fair given the Employer's discretion in denying the redeployment.

The Employer objected, arguing the Union must first establish a prima facie case that the grievor was qualified.

The Board denied the Union's request, finding no reason to depart from the usual practice of requiring the Union to present its evidence first in non-disciplinary cases.

The union filed a grievance alleging that the employer used inmates to perform unionized housekeeping work over the Christmas vacation time.

The matter proceeded through an expedited mediation-arbitration process.

The arbitrator reviewed the facts and submissions and dismissed the grievance without reasons, in accordance with the negotiated protocol.

The union filed two grievances on behalf of the grievor.

The first alleged that a supervisor performed bargaining unit work by writing a report containing incorrect statements.

The second alleged that an email reminding the grievor to sign in for her shift constituted discipline, harassment, and anti-union animus.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed both grievances, finding no violation of the collective agreement regarding the first grievance and concluding that the email in the second grievance was not disciplinary and lacked any improper motive.

The Employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss two grievances alleging failure to convert fixed-term employees to classified status, arguing the particulars disclosed no prima facie case.

The Union alleged the Employer acted in bad faith by manipulating work assignments to prevent the grievors from reaching the 18-month threshold required for conversion under the collective agreement.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the work performed in different classifications was not the 'same work' and that the Employer was not obligated to extend contracts.

The Board concluded the particulars did not establish bad faith or a violation of the collective agreement, and dismissed the grievances.

The Union referred a grievance to arbitration beyond the time limits set out in the collective agreement.

The Employer raised a preliminary objection regarding timeliness.

The Union argued the Employer waived its right to object by failing to raise the issue in a timely manner and by taking fresh steps, including participating in mediation and scheduling hearing dates.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the Employer's general reservation of rights was insufficient notice of a timeliness objection.

Because the Employer waited many months before specifying its objection, it waived its right to object.

The preliminary objection was dismissed.

The grievor, a classified Youth Services Officer, filed a grievance alleging that the Employer violated the Collective Agreement by failing to laterally transfer him to a facility in Sudbury to be closer to his son.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that there were no lateral transfers during the relevant time and concluded that there was no violation of the Collective Agreement.

The grievance was dismissed.

The Union filed grievances on behalf of classified and fixed-term Youth Service Workers alleging they were improperly denied opportunities to transfer laterally between ministries under the parties' Memoranda of Agreement.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievances, finding that no positions were filled during the relevant period and that the Employer retained its inherent right to determine whether to fill positions and to transfer fixed-term employees based on operational requirements.

The grievor, a Rehabilitation Officer, filed a grievance alleging that the Cross Ministry MERC Agreements were flawed and unfair toward non-correctional staff.

The grievor argued that Youth Service Officers were given access to Correctional Officer positions while non-correctional staff were not, and that his classification did not have the opportunity for enhanced packages.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding no violation of the Collective Agreement and concluding that the MERC agreement, which aimed to provide job stability to job-threatened employees, was neither flawed nor unfair.

The grievor, a Correctional Officer, filed a grievance alleging that a MERC agreement providing for cross-ministry transfers and enhanced severance packages for certain job-threatened employees was flawed and contravened the collective agreement.

The grievor argued he should have been allowed access to the enhanced severance package.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the negotiated MERC agreements attempted to provide employment stability and were not contrary to the spirit of the collective agreement, nor did they treat employees in the same classification unfairly.

The grievor, a Child Care Worker at Thistletown Regional Centre, elected to take a voluntary exit package and received enhanced severance when the centre's closure was announced.

Subsequently, the union and employer negotiated additional options for employees.

The grievor attempted to elect one of the new options but was ineligible as he had already been declared surplus.

He later obtained a fixed-term position at another centre, which required him to repay his enhanced severance.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding no breach of the collective agreement or any memorandum of agreement, as the grievor had simply regretted his initial election after new options became available.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of the grievor alleging that other employees were allowed to remain in the Ministry during a transition period and he should have been afforded the same opportunity.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance on the basis of res judicata, noting that the grievor had previously filed and had denied grievances making the same allegations about the same time period.

The grievor, a Correctional Officer, accepted a retirement package.

Upon leaving, the employer deducted 28 hours from his final vacation pay out, citing a shortfall in hours worked due to a schedule change from a compressed work week to an administrative schedule.

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

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

During a grievance proceeding, the Union requested the production of the Family Responsibility Office's Case Management System (FCMS) records for a client involved in an incident.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the Ministry to produce the requested records, subject to conditions including restricting the timeframe, redacting all personal information as defined by the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and limiting the use of the records solely to the proceeding.

During a power outage at the Central North Correctional Centre, the employer sent some employees home with pay while requiring others to remain at work.

The union filed a group grievance alleging favouritism and a failure to provide fairness and equity to all staff, seeking two hours of overtime pay for those who remained.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding no violation of the collective agreement.

The union filed three grievances on behalf of a correctional officer under an expedited mediation-arbitration protocol.

The first grievance challenged a ten-day suspension for an incident; the arbitrator found the discipline somewhat harsh given the grievor's clean record and reduced it to a five-day suspension.

The second grievance alleged a failure to provide overtime during a family status accommodation period; this was dismissed as the accommodation plan noted it would affect overtime ability.

The third grievance alleged violations regarding a workplace harassment complaint; the arbitrator found no violation but ordered the employer to complete the recommended coaching for the co-worker and a joint session.

A group grievance was filed by three Correctional Officers claiming entitlement to the Absenteeism Target Incentive for all hours in 2012, including periods they were on paid or unpaid leave.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the collective agreement explicitly required the incentive to be paid based on 'hours worked' rather than hours paid.

Since the grievors did not work any hours during their leave, they were not entitled to the bonus for that period.

The grievor, a Correctional Officer, filed two grievances alleging that the Employer violated the Collective Agreement by applying the Attendance Support Program to him and other officers at the Toronto West Detention Centre, while allegedly not applying it to officers at other institutions.

The grievances were heard through an expedited mediation-arbitration process.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievances, finding that the Attendance Support Program is in effect and being applied consistently throughout the Province, with no exceptions or disparate treatment.

The parties disputed the interpretation of a Memorandum of Agreement requiring WDHP/Human Rights training for 'all staff' at a correctional centre.

The union argued the employer had an ongoing obligation to train all new employees in the future, while the employer disagreed.

The Vice-Chair held that 'all staff' referred only to those employed as of the date the Agreement was signed, meaning there was no ongoing obligation for future hires.

However, the Vice-Chair also ruled that the employer must ensure all staff employed at the time of signing who missed the training (due to leaves, illness, etc.) complete it, as the Agreement did not qualify the requirement.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of a correctional officer who accepted a temporary assignment as a Maintenance Mechanic 3.

The union argued that under the collective agreement, the grievor was temporarily assigned by the employer and should have been paid his higher correctional officer wage for the period before he signed a secondment agreement.

The arbitrator found that the employer did not require the grievor to take the assignment, but rather offered it to him, and he accepted it.

Relying on previous jurisprudence, the arbitrator concluded that the grievor was not assigned from his position, but was permitted to take leave to accept the temporary role.

The grievance was denied.

The grievor, a fixed term Correctional Officer, filed a grievance alleging that the Employer violated the Collective Agreement by denying him compassionate leave and discriminating against him based on his employment status.

The matter proceeded to expedited mediation-arbitration.

The arbitrator found no violation of the Collective Agreement and no evidence of discrimination.

The grievance was denied.