Felicity D. Briggs

A med-arb session was held to resolve numerous outstanding overtime grievances between the union and the employer within the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services.

In accordance with the parties' Memorandum of Agreement, the Vice-Chair issued a decision without reasons, detailing the disposition of 40 individual grievances.

The majority of the grievances were dismissed, while several were allowed with specific hours of overtime awarded.

Six Correctional Officers grieved that the Employer violated the Collective Agreement by failing to convert them from fixed-term to classified status after performing the same work for over eighteen months.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievances, finding it lacked jurisdiction.

The Board applied a previous decision which held that a 2008 Memorandum of Agreement barred the advancement of conversion grievances during the term of the Collective Agreement.

The grievor, a Correctional Officer, elected a non-working notice period when surplussed.

He alleged he injured his knee during this period but did not notify the Employer or request sick leave until after the notice period had concluded.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that because the grievor failed to report the injury during the notice period, he was not entitled to sick leave benefits.

Two classified Correctional Officers filed grievances alleging the Employer violated the Collective Agreement by failing to include hours they worked at the Central North Correctional Centre (CNCC) in the calculation of their continuous service dates.

The grievors had worked at CNCC while it was privately operated by MTC, and resigned to work for the Ontario Public Service.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievances, finding that MTC was a private company and the grievors were not Ontario Public Service employees during that time.

Therefore, the hours worked for MTC could not be included in their continuous service dates.

The Union grieved the Employer's scheduling practices under a Compressed Work Week Agreement at the Elgin Middlesex Detention Centre.

The parties asked the Grievance Settlement Board to determine two questions regarding staffing levels.

The Board held that the agreement requires the Employer to schedule 147 classified Correctional Officer positions per day and make every effort to backfill them if absent.

However, the Board found that the agreement does not restrict the Employer's management right to assign those officers to duties outside the building, such as escort duties, during their shifts.

The parties held a conference call to discuss the scheduling and process for hearing multiple grievances filed by two correctional officers, including suspension and discharge grievances.

The parties agreed to a schedule for hearing the suspension grievances without counsel, followed by the discharge grievance with counsel, and the remaining grievances thereafter.

The Board issued a decision reflecting this agreement.

The employer brought a motion to consolidate the discharge grievance of one employee with the grievance of another employee who alleged the employer failed to provide a safe workplace.

Both grievances arose from the same incident where the discharged employee allegedly assaulted the other employee.

The union opposed consolidation on behalf of the assaulted employee, arguing it would cause delay and stress.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the matters shared common questions of fact and arose from the same occurrence.

To avoid inconsistent findings of fact, the Board ordered that the matters be heard together, though they would retain their individual identities rather than being strictly consolidated.

The grievor, a receptionist at a detention centre, filed a grievance alleging that her manager yelled at her in front of staff and the public, constituting harassment and violating the Collective Agreement.

The matter proceeded through an Expedited Mediation-Arbitration process.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that while the supervisor exercised very poor managerial skills, the conduct did not amount to harassment.

The grievance was denied.

The union filed a grievance alleging the employer failed to roll the grievor into classified status.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the grievance was referred to the Board outside the mandated time limits.

The union argued the employer waived this right by taking 'fresh steps' after initially noting its objection, specifically by investigating the grievor's hours and engaging in discussions on the merits.

The arbitrator agreed with the union, finding the employer took fresh steps and waived its right to rely on the timeliness objection.

As the parties agreed the grievance would be upheld if the objection failed, the grievance was allowed.

The Union filed a grievance alleging the Employer violated the collective agreement by refusing to properly compensate fixed-term employees for violations of the Provincial Overtime Protocol.

The parties disputed two issues: the entitlement to a day in lieu for employees who work on a holiday but are absent on their adjacent scheduled shift, and the meaning of 'exhausted' regarding the assignment of non-overtime resources before offering overtime.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that the Employer cannot presume an absence adjacent to a holiday is without reasonable cause, and must request medical proof if abuse is suspected.

On the second issue, the Board found that the Employer must make a genuine effort to exhaust non-overtime resources before offering overtime, but this obligation is qualified by the phrase 'to the extent possible' and is not strictly mandatory.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of a maintenance plumber alleging violations of the collective agreement arising from an incident on October 19, 2011.

The matter proceeded through an expedited mediation-arbitration process.

The arbitrator found no violation of the collective agreement and dismissed the grievance without reasons, in accordance with the negotiated protocol.

Several Correctional Officers filed grievances alleging the Employer failed to pay an attendance bonus for hours they were absent due to STSP, LTIP, and WSIB, arguing this was discriminatory.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievances, applying prior jurisprudence which established that an attendance bonus is a work-driven benefit.

The Board held that requiring work in exchange for compensation is a reasonable and bona fide requirement, and withholding such a benefit during absences does not violate the Human Rights Code.

The union filed grievances on behalf of two correctional officers alleging unjust discipline and a poisoned work environment following suspensions for an alleged excessive use of force incident.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the employer to provide appropriate disclosure to the union and directed that a teleconference be scheduled to discuss the hearing process once disclosure was complete.

The grievors filed multiple grievances alleging denial of sick leave, harassment, and discriminatory treatment.

They also filed complaints with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.

Following unsuccessful mediation, the parties agreed to have the Grievance Settlement Board determine the outstanding human rights issues.

The Board issued this decision to formalize the agreement, directed the union to provide full particulars of the human rights issues, and noted that the Human Rights Tribunal had deferred its proceedings.

The union brought grievances on behalf of an employee who was suspended with pay for five months and then given a disciplinary suspension without pay.

The parties participated in an expedited mediation-arbitration process.

The arbitrator was persuaded by the union's submissions and ordered that the grievor be made whole in terms of compensation and credited with all hours lost due to sick leave for the period at issue.

A group of Correctional Officers filed grievances alleging the Employer violated the Collective Agreement by failing to convert them from fixed-term to regular status.

The Employer argued that a prior Memorandum of Agreement, which provided for a specific number of conversions, explicitly barred the advancement of further conversion grievances during the term of the Collective Agreement.

The Grievance Settlement Board agreed with the Employer, finding that the prior agreement precluded the grievances, and dismissed them for lack of jurisdiction.

The grievors, classified as Cook 2, obtained temporary Cook 3 positions and subsequently filed grievances requesting reclassification to permanent Cook 3 positions.

The parties signed a Memorandum of Agreement stating the grievances would be withdrawn if a business case for the Cook 3 positions was approved.

The business case was not approved, and the grievors were returned to their Cook 2 positions and surplussed.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the original grievances, finding no provision in the collective agreement obliging the employer to fill vacant positions.

The grievor, a Correctional Officer, filed a grievance alleging she should have been rolled-over from fixed-term to regular classified employee status pursuant to a Memorandum of Agreement.

The grievor argued she missed the Expression of Interest posting due to a workplace injury.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding it unnecessary to decide the notice issue because the grievor was 112 hours short of the last person on the list to be rolled-over.

Nine grievors worked in the STEP program at Thistletown Residential Centre.

When the program closed, they were offered alternative work in the TREAD program along with necessary training.

The grievors declined the work because it was unfamiliar and involved a different client group.

They subsequently filed grievances seeking notice payments under the Employment Standards Act.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievances, finding that the employer had work available and offered training, and the grievors could not elect to leave and demand pay in lieu of notice.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of a grounds maintenance worker, alleging that the employer violated the collective agreement by running an unfair and flawed job competition.

The competition was for a position limited to job-threatened employees, and the grievor was not the successful candidate.

The Grievance Settlement Board denied the grievance, finding no evidence of a flawed process or any violation of the collective agreement.

The Board also noted that the successful incumbent had greater seniority than the grievor.