Gail Misra

The grievor, a Youth Services Officer, filed a grievance claiming entitlement to call back pay after receiving a telephone call from a manager outside of his scheduled working hours.

The manager called to inform the grievor that his accommodation request had been approved.

The union argued the call constituted a call back to work under the collective agreement.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that the call was merely to inform the grievor of the accommodation approval and did not involve the performance of work-related tasks.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of a cook who received a three-day suspension for allegedly putting pineapple on a special diet pizza for a youth with a severe allergy.

The employer relied on a brief occurrence report written by the grievor, who was unsophisticated and wrote it without knowing the full details of the incident.

The arbitrator found that another employee had prepared the special diet pizzas and that the grievor had only worked on regular pizzas.

The arbitrator concluded the employer failed to prove just cause on a balance of probabilities, upheld the grievance, and ordered the suspension removed from the grievor's record with full compensation.

The grievor filed a grievance claiming she was short-paid for sick days in January 2023.

Shortly after filing, the employer corrected the payroll error and paid the outstanding amount.

The grievor continued to seek damages equivalent to 12 hours of regular pay for the inconvenience caused by the delay.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that the employer's local payroll had promptly submitted the correct information and the delay was caused by a mistake at Ontario Shared Services, which did not warrant an award of damages.

The grievor, a Correctional Officer, was placed on an unpaid leave of absence for three months after providing medical documentation outlining extensive restrictions.

The Union grieved the Employer's failure to accommodate.

The Employer raised a preliminary objection regarding the timeliness of the grievance.

The Arbitrator allowed the late filing due to the grievor's poor mental health at the time and the lack of prejudice to the Employer.

On the merits, the Arbitrator found that the Employer failed to fulfill its duty to accommodate the grievor to the point of undue hardship, as it did not advise her of any accommodation efforts or its inability to accommodate her before placing her on unpaid leave.

The grievance was upheld, and the Employer was ordered to pay lost wages for the period of the unpaid leave.

The Union alleged the Employer breached a Memorandum of Settlement (MOS) requiring it to notify the Union of meetings with employees under Article 30 of the collective agreement.

The Employer argued it could not comply with the MOS because a prior Grievance Settlement Board decision held that the Union was not entitled to such information unless the employee requested representation.

The Arbitrator found the Employer was in an untenable position due to the prior decision, declared the MOS null and void, and directed that the original grievance remain outstanding.

The parties reconvened to address monetary compensation issues arising from a previous arbitration award that upheld three grievances, including one from the Sudbury Jail.

Despite attempts over three years to identify individual claims for compensation from the Sudbury Jail, no such claims were found.

To ensure finality, the arbitrator dismissed the Sudbury Jail grievance.

The union filed a grievance alleging the employer improperly denied the grievor sick pay for a three-day absence and requested a medical certificate as a reprisal following an unsuccessful work refusal.

The arbitrator found that the employer had contemporaneously requested a medical note when the grievor left work sick.

The grievor failed to provide an acceptable medical certificate, as the note provided was obtained 15 days later from an emergency department where he had not been seen during his absence.

The grievance was dismissed.

The grievor, a correctional officer, was off work on sick leave for seven months.

When his short-term sick plan credits were about to expire, he provided conflicting medical notes regarding his ability to return to work.

The employer sought clarification from the grievor's physician, which delayed his return to work by a few weeks.

The union grieved, alleging a failure to accommodate and seeking lost wages.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that the employer acted diligently and quickly to accommodate the grievor in the face of conflicting medical information and delays by the physician.

The union grieved a five-day unpaid suspension issued to a correctional officer for failing to file a timely and complete Use of Force Occurrence Report.

The grievor assisted a sergeant in moving an inmate and applying handcuffs, during which the sergeant placed a hand on the inmate's neck.

The grievor failed to file the required report by the end of her shift and only submitted it nearly two weeks later after being reminded, omitting the detail of the neck hold.

The arbitrator found just cause for discipline given the breach of established policy and previous discipline for a similar issue, but determined that a five-day suspension was excessive.

The grievance was upheld in part, and the penalty was reduced to a three-day unpaid suspension.

The grievor, a Fixed Term Registered Practical Nurse, filed a grievance alleging the Employer improperly awarded a rollover to a classified position to an employee with fewer hours.

The successful candidate had filed a timely dispute of her hours, resulting in a recalculation that placed her ahead of the grievor.

The grievor failed to dispute her hours until four weeks after the deadline.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding the grievor's dispute was untimely and her subsequent request for compensation for Correctional Officer training costs was unrelated and without legal basis.

The grievor, a Correctional Officer, filed a grievance claiming the Employer failed to include his prior service with the Ministry of Natural Resources and as a regular Motor Vehicle Operator when calculating his Continuous Service Date.

The grievor had resigned from his regular position to accept a fixed-term Correctional Officer position.

The Arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that under the collective agreement, the grievor's resignation deemed his continuous service up to that point to have terminated, causing a break in service.

The grievor, a regular classified Correctional Officer, was granted an unpaid leave of absence to accept a full-time Constable position with the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP).

After deciding to return to his Correctional Officer position, the Employer required him to resign from the OPP and rehired him as a fixed-term employee, citing a break in service.

The union grieved, arguing he should return to his regular classified position.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the grievor had no standing to file the grievance while represented by the OPP Association.

Furthermore, the Board held that the initial leave of absence was granted in error, as Ontario Regulation 381/07 and the Compensation Directive prohibit an Ontario Public Service employee from holding two full-time positions simultaneously.

The union filed a group grievance on behalf of seventeen correctional officers, alleging the employer erred in calculating their Continuous Service Dates (CSD) upon their transition from fixed-term to regular classified status.

Following a review of the records, the parties agreed on recalculated dates.

The arbitrator directed the employer to implement the corrected CSDs for sixteen grievors and adjust the accumulated hours for one fixed-term employee, while ordering that no further grievances could be filed regarding the impact of these specific corrections.

The Union requested a correction to a factual error in a November 2022 decision that dismissed two grievances regarding travel and meal allowances during a temporary relocation.

The original decision incorrectly stated the grievor used a Ministry vehicle to retrieve personal effects.

The Arbitrator acknowledged the grievor used his personal vehicle and received four hours of duty time.

However, because the grievor still received more duty time than colleagues who relocated elsewhere, the Arbitrator concluded the corrected facts did not change the outcome, and the grievances remained dismissed.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of a fixed-term correctional officer seeking full credit for military service and a recalculation of his continuous service date.

The employer argued the grievor had a 22-week break in employment, which reset his accumulated hours to zero, and that he had received the maximum allowable credit for his military leaves under the collective agreement.

The arbitrator agreed with the employer, finding the grievor lost all accumulated hours prior to October 2018 due to a break in employment exceeding 13 weeks, and had received the maximum recognition for his military leaves of absence.

The grievance was dismissed.

Two fixed-term Correctional Officers grieved the denial of their rollover to regular classified positions at the Thunder Bay Jail.

The grievors had temporarily transferred to the jail but did not formally transfer their fixed-term contracts until later.

Relying on a previous decision involving the Kenora Jail, the Arbitrator held that an employee must have formally and permanently transferred their contract to the institution at least one year before the Expression of Interest to be eligible for rollover.

Because the grievors had not met this requirement, the grievances were dismissed.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of a fixed-term youth service officer, alleging the employer improperly calculated her hours worked by failing to credit sick time and WSIB absences, and failed to post accumulated hours quarterly.

The employer argued the grievance was untimely because the grievor failed to raise discrepancies within the required deadlines after hours were posted in 2017, 2018, and 2019.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding the grievor waited too long to raise her concerns and that ignorance of her rights or being too busy were not acceptable reasons for the delay.

The grievor, a regular classified employee, accepted a fixed-term seasonal position and subsequently signed a resignation package to receive her vacation payout.

When she later accepted a new regular position, her continuous service date was adjusted to reflect a break in service.

The union grieved, arguing she was misled about the consequences of signing the resignation package.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that under the collective agreement and employer policy, an employee cannot hold both a regular and fixed-term position simultaneously, and her signed resignation deemed her continuous service terminated.

The grievor, a Correctional Officer, filed two grievances claiming entitlement to travel, meal, and kilometric expenses following his temporary relocation from the Ontario Correctional Institute (OCI) to the Central North Correctional Centre (CNCC) due to a COVID-19 outbreak.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that under the Memorandum of Agreement, employees who initiated their own temporary relocation to a different institution were not entitled to expense reimbursement.

Because the grievor chose to relocate to CNCC rather than follow his work to the Maplehurst Correctional Complex, he was not entitled to the claimed expenses.

Both grievances were dismissed.

The grievor, a fixed-term Correctional Officer, filed grievances claiming kilometric rate reimbursement, meal allowances, and travel time after temporarily relocating to a different correctional centre during a COVID-19 outbreak at his home institution.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that under the parties' Memorandum of Agreement, employees who initiated their own temporary relocation were not entitled to expense reimbursements.

Because the grievor chose to relocate to a different facility rather than follow his work to the designated relocation site, he was not entitled to the claimed expenses.

Furthermore, he was provided a full shift of paid duty time to retrieve his personal belongings, consistent with the treatment of his colleagues.

The grievances were dismissed.