Gail Misra

The union filed a grievance on behalf of a fixed-term Youth Services Officer who was not considered for a rollover to a regular classified position.

The grievor had replied to an email from the Deputy Administrator to express his interest, but failed to read the Expression of Interest which explicitly directed applications to the Administrator.

The grievor also ignored an out-of-office reply directing him to the Administrator.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding the employer acted properly as the grievor failed to submit his application to the correct person.

Furthermore, the grievor lacked sufficient seniority to have been successful even if his application had been properly submitted.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of a fixed-term Youth Services Officer, alleging the employer failed to consider her for rollover into a regular position.

The employer had posted an Expression of Interest requiring applications to be emailed to the Administrator.

The grievor mistakenly replied to the Deputy Administrator's email and failed to read his out-of-office reply directing urgent matters to the Administrator.

Because the grievor did not submit her application to the correct person before the deadline, the employer was unaware of her interest.

The arbitrator found the employer did not act improperly and dismissed the grievance.

The grievor, a Fixed Term Correctional Officer, alleged that the Employer breached the Collective Agreement by unfairly applying a Memorandum of Agreement regarding temporary placements during a capital project at the North Bay Jail.

The grievor claimed his ability to progress in seniority was impaired.

The arbitrator found that the grievor never made a formal transfer request and that the employees who were transferred either went to institutions the grievor had not expressed interest in or had greater seniority than the grievor.

The grievance was dismissed as there was no breach of the MOA or the Collective Agreement.

The union filed grievances on behalf of a fixed-term correctional officer, alleging her total hours worked were incorrectly calculated, which delayed her rollover into the regular service.

The employer acknowledged the miscalculation and agreed to roll the grievor over into the regular service effective October 14, 2024.

The sole outstanding issue was the determination of the grievor's Continuous Service Date (CSD).

The arbitrator directed the employer to record the grievor's CSD as May 10, 2019.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of a fixed-term correctional officer who claimed he resigned from his previous regular service position under duress to accept the fixed-term role, seeking to maintain his unbroken service.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the grievor chose to resign from his regular position to work as a fixed-term correctional officer, which resulted in the termination of his continuous service under the collective agreement.

The Board concluded there was no duress, as it was the grievor's choice, and dismissed the grievance.

The grievor, a Fixed Term Youth Services Officer, filed a grievance claiming his continuous service should include time worked at a different Ministry prior to his current employment.

The grievor had resigned from his previous regular position to take a fixed-term position after being denied a sufficient leave of absence for training.

The Arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that under the collective agreement, the grievor's resignation from his previous position resulted in the termination of his continuous service, causing a break in service.

The grievor, a Fixed Term Youth Services Officer, sought payment for ten hours of overtime allegedly spent writing four Occurrence Reports after his regular shift ended.

The Employer denied the claim, arguing the overtime was not authorized and the time claimed was excessive for the work produced.

The Arbitrator found that while there was implicit authorization for some overtime, it was implausible that it took 11.5 hours to write the four short and error-riddled reports.

The grievance was upheld in part, and the Employer was directed to pay the grievor for 1.5 hours of overtime.

Six grievances were filed alleging the Employer breached the collective agreement and the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) by inadvertently allowing unrestricted access to personal and confidential employee information on the computer network for approximately 43 hours.

The arbitrator found that the Employer breached FIPPA by exposing the sensitive information, causing the grievors stress.

The grievances were upheld, and the Employer was ordered to pay $350 in damages to each grievor and to share the results of the ongoing forensic IT audit once completed.

The grievor, a Correctional Officer, filed a grievance alleging the Employer violated the Collective Agreement by failing to implement his new wage rate and pay retroactive monies in a timely manner following an interest arbitration award.

The grievor claimed the delay prevented him from securing a mortgage pre-approval, causing him to miss out on purchasing a home before prices rose, and sought $10,000 in damages.

The Arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding the three-and-a-half-month delay was not inordinate given the volume of calculations required and the grievor's specific circumstances involving a recent parental leave.

The Arbitrator concluded there was no basis in the Collective Agreement or jurisprudence to award damages for changes in real estate market conditions.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of a correctional officer who was required to work 20 consecutive shifts to requalify for short-term sick leave after returning from an extended absence for cancer treatment.

The union argued the grievor should have been considered to have worked on January 1, 2023, as he was marked 'worked stat on stat' on the schedule.

The arbitrator found that the grievor was in the hospital on January 1, 2023, and his sick leave straddled two calendar years.

Under the collective agreement, an employee whose sick leave straddles two calendar years must work 20 consecutive days to re-establish entitlement.

The grievance was dismissed.

The grievor, a Fixed Term Youth Services Officer, was not enrolled in the OP Trust pension plan at the time of his hire due to an employer administrative error.

Over two years later, the grievor discovered the error and arranged to buy back the missed pension credits over a ten-year period, incurring $3,400.35 in interest.

The union grieved, seeking to have the employer pay the full interest amount.

The arbitrator found that while the employer breached its obligation to enroll the grievor, the grievor should have noticed the lack of deductions on his pay stubs and T4s, and chose the longest possible financing term.

The grievance was upheld in part, with the employer ordered to pay half of the interest costs.

The grievor, a Correctional Officer, filed a grievance alleging the Employer incorrectly calculated his Continuous Service Date (CSD) when he rolled over from a fixed-term to a classified position.

The grievor argued his prior seasonal employment with the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry should count without interruption.

The Arbitrator found that the collective agreement required the CSD to be calculated from the last break in employment greater than 13 weeks.

The Employer's recalculation, which identified a 15-week break ending in January 2015, was correct.

The grievance was upheld in part to reflect the recalculated CSD of December 31, 2016.

The union grieved a five-day unpaid suspension imposed on a correctional officer who inadvertently took home a set of unit keys, resulting in a lockdown and search.

The arbitrator found that while the employer had just cause for discipline, the five-day suspension was too severe.

The arbitrator noted mitigating factors, including the grievor's forthrightness, admission of mistake, and the fact that the employer's key count system had also failed, delaying the discovery of the missing keys.

The grievance was allowed in part, and the suspension was reduced to three days with compensation for the two days lost.

The union filed grievances on behalf of ten employees alleging the employer violated the collective agreement by failing to provide 96 hours' notice of a shift schedule change.

The employees, who were scheduled to work on Family Day under a new compressed work week agreement, were advised 88 hours in advance that they were not required to work on the statutory holiday.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievances, finding that advising employees their services are not required on a statutory holiday does not constitute a change to the shift schedule.

The employer was exercising its management rights to determine staffing levels and paid the employees in accordance with the collective agreement for the un-worked holiday.

The grievor, a Correctional Officer, was suspended for one day without pay after being observed on video not wearing required PPE and eating in a non-designated area during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The grievor subsequently tested positive for COVID-19, requiring co-workers to self-isolate.

The Union grieved the suspension, arguing it was without just cause and noting the grievor's honesty and apologies.

The Arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding the Employer had just cause for the suspension given the seriousness of the breach of infection prevention measures and the impact on co-workers.

The grievor filed a grievance claiming he was improperly denied the right to return to his former position without loss of time after taking a leave of absence.

This was the second grievance filed by the grievor regarding the exact same issue, with the first having been dismissed by the Board in a prior decision.

The employer brought a motion to dismiss the current grievance on the basis of res judicata.

The arbitrator upheld the motion, finding that the grievor was seeking to re-litigate a matter already decided between the same parties on the same facts, and dismissed the grievance.

The grievor, a Correctional Officer, filed a grievance claiming the Employer erred in calculating his Continuous Service Date (CSD) by excluding his prior employment at the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation (OLGC).

The union argued that because the OPSEU Pension Plan recognized the OLGC service date, the Employer should as well.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that the OLGC is a Crown agency not directly operated by the provincial government and therefore not part of the Ontario Public Service (OPS).

Consistent with prior decisions, only time worked within the OPS can be counted towards the CSD.

The Union filed a grievance alleging the Employer violated the collective agreement by failing to post and fill vacancies or roll over fixed-term employees into regular positions at the Elgin-Middlesex Detention Centre.

The Employer argued that vacancies were temporarily held open to absorb staff displaced by the closure of the Regional Intermittent Centre during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The arbitrator found that the Employer had a valid reason for holding the vacancies open and noted that the parties had since executed two Memoranda of Agreement to roll over fixed-term staff into regular service.

The grievance was dismissed.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of a correctional officer claiming the employer failed to properly determine his accumulated hours following his return to work, seeking recognition of previous service as a fixed-term employee.

The employer brought a motion to dismiss the grievance on the basis of res judicata, noting that the grievor had filed an identical grievance previously which was dismissed by the Board.

The arbitrator granted the employer's motion, finding that the grievor was attempting to re-litigate the same issue between the same parties on the same facts, and dismissed the grievance.

The grievor, a correctional officer, was placed on a 15-month paid suspension pending an investigation into a workplace harassment complaint filed against her by a coworker.

The investigation ultimately found the allegations unsubstantiated.

The union grieved the suspension, arguing the employer failed to consider alternatives to removing the grievor from the workplace, as required by a 2012 Memorandum of Settlement and the Sabada decision.

The arbitrator upheld the grievance, finding the employer failed to consider whether the grievor could remain in the workplace or the anticipated length of the investigation before imposing the suspension.

The matter of remedy was remitted to the parties.