Gail Misra

The grievor, a Correctional Officer, filed a grievance claiming he was wrongfully required to resign from his previous Regular Service OPS position to accept a fixed-term position, negatively affecting his Continuous Service Date.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, noting that the grievor had filed essentially the same grievance in 2019, which was dismissed in a 2020 decision.

The arbitrator found the issue had already been decided and filing another grievance would not change the outcome.

The grievor, a Records Clerk, filled a temporary Rehabilitation Officer 2 position for over 18 months.

She grieved the Employer's decision to deny her a permanent position and instead hold a job competition, in which she was unsuccessful.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that under Article 8.6.3 of the collective agreement, the Employer has the discretion, but not the obligation, to assign an employee to a permanent position after 18 months in a temporary assignment.

The grievor, a classified Correctional Officer, filed an individual grievance alleging that the Employer failed to post quarterly hours for Fixed Term (FXT) employees as required by Appendix COR8 of the collective agreement.

The Employer acknowledged its obligation to post the hours but argued the grievor lacked standing because he was not an FXT employee and was not personally affected by the alleged failure.

The Arbitrator agreed and dismissed the grievance, finding that the grievor could not bring an individual grievance or seek the requested remedies for an issue that did not personally affect him.

The grievor, a Correctional Officer, was issued a Disciplinary Letter of Reprimand for being present while a sergeant took digital images of an inmate's injuries following a use of force incident.

The grievor had been involved in the incident and the Employer's policy stated that involved staff should not be present unless operationally necessary.

The Arbitrator found that the sergeant was responsible for deciding if it was operationally feasible to have uninvolved staff present, and the sergeant had directed the grievor to be present.

The Arbitrator concluded the Employer did not have just cause for discipline and ordered the reprimand removed from the grievor's record.

The grievor filed a grievance alleging a poisoned work environment.

After abruptly leaving a previous mediation/arbitration session, the grievor was ordered to attend a rescheduled session on April 20 or 21, 2022, or face dismissal of the grievance.

The grievor failed to attend or provide an explanation.

The arbitrator found that the grievor had abandoned the grievance and dismissed it.

The grievor, a Correctional Officer on paid union leave, filed a grievance claiming entitlement to Temporary Pandemic Pay (TPP).

The TPP was a provincial program providing a wage top-up for employees working in congregate care settings during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The arbitrator found that because the grievor was on union leave and not performing the regular duties of a Correctional Officer in a congregate setting, he was not eligible for the TPP.

The grievance was dismissed.

A group grievance was filed by nine Correctional Officers claiming they should be paid the Provincial Bailiff wage rate, including travel time and mileage, for performing inmate transfers after the Bailiff Unit was disbanded.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that the grievors' current top CO2 wage rate was higher than the Provincial Bailiff 1 rate, and they were not entitled to travel time as they were assigned the transfers after arriving at their home institution.

The union filed a grievance alleging the employer failed to accommodate the grievor when he was able to return to work.

To facilitate the efficient litigation of the grievance, the arbitrator issued a procedural order directing the union to produce relevant medical, insurance, and employment records, as well as particulars regarding the requested accommodations and the grievor's efforts to obtain training.

The employer was also directed to produce relevant documents.

The parties reserved their rights regarding the scope of the grievance as it relates to the grievor's fitness for duty as a bus driver given his prescribed cannabis usage.

The grievor, a Mental Health Nurse, filed a grievance alleging the Employer violated the collective agreement by not crediting his prior nursing experience to provide a higher starting salary when he moved from a temporary to a permanent position.

The Employer maintained the move was a lateral transfer, which did not warrant a salary increase under the collective agreement.

The Arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding the grievor had accepted the offered wage rate and the collective agreement did not entitle him to the higher rate sought.

The grievor, a fixed-term Recreation Officer, filed a grievance alleging the employer unfairly distributed hours of work to other fixed-term employees, resulting in a discrepancy of approximately 40 hours over 18 months compared to two colleagues hired on the same date.

The arbitrator found the union and grievor failed to provide evidence of when or how the discrepancy occurred or identify occasions when hours should have been offered to the grievor.

The arbitrator concluded the 40-hour difference over 18 months was not an extreme differential and dismissed the grievance, finding no breach of the employer's obligation to average hours of work.

The grievor, a Fixed Term Correctional Officer, alleged that the Employer improperly calculated his hours, which delayed his rollover to permanent classified status.

He claimed he should have been rolled over in March 2020 rather than August 2020.

The Arbitrator found that even with a recalculation of hours, the grievor did not have enough hours to qualify for the January 2020 Expression of Interest.

The grievance was dismissed.

Two Fixed Term Correctional Officers filed grievances claiming they were delayed in rolling over to classified status due to the Employer's incorrect interpretation of eligibility criteria in an August 2020 Expression of Interest.

The delay was caused by a separate Union grievance that had to be litigated to resolve the eligibility issue.

The Arbitrator dismissed the grievances, finding that the delay was the inevitable result of the litigation process and that the Employer had not acted in bad faith in its original assessment.

The grievor, a Fixed Term Correctional Officer, took an approved unpaid leave of absence due to a lack of childcare during the COVID-19 pandemic.

She filed a grievance claiming she should be credited with hours for the duration of her unpaid leave for the purposes of seniority and merit increases.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, applying a previous Board decision which established that unclassified employees do not receive credit for hours during an approved leave of absence without pay.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of a fixed-term correctional officer who sought to have his prior service at another institution counted towards his total hours worked.

The grievor had previously resigned from his position before being rehired.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that under the collective agreement, a resignation constitutes a break in service and terminates continuous service up to that point.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of a correctional officer disputing the employer's calculation of his Continuous Service Date (CSD) upon his rollover from fixed-term to regular status.

Following a review of the records, it became apparent that the employer had incorrectly calculated the grievor's work weeks in 2018 and 2019 based on an old collective agreement formula.

The arbitrator directed the employer to adjust the grievor's CSD to reflect the correct calculation of his work weeks.

The union filed a group grievance alleging the employer made errors in calculating the continuous service dates (CSD) for several employees when they were rolled over into classified status at the Toronto South Detention Centre.

The parties reviewed the records and agreed on recalculated dates.

The arbitrator directed the employer to amend the CSDs for the affected individuals as agreed, noting that while some dates moved earlier and some later, no further grievances could be filed regarding the impact of these specific changes.

The grievor, a Correctional Officer, filed a grievance in 2019 disputing the calculation of her Continuous Service Date (CSD), which the employer had corrected in 2003.

The employer raised a timeliness objection.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, noting the significant delay in filing and the grievor's failure to provide documentation supporting her claim that hours were missing from the employer's recalculation.

The grievor, a Probation and Parole Officer, filed a grievance alleging the employer violated the collective agreement by denying his Transition Exit Initiative (TEI) request while approving a less senior employee's request.

Following the filing of the grievance, the grievor's TEI request was granted during a modernization process.

The union subsequently advised the employer that the grievor agreed to withdraw the grievance.

Although the grievor later claimed he did not want to withdraw it, the arbitrator found that the grievance was moot because the grievor had already received the exact remedy sought.

The grievance was dismissed.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of a fixed-term correctional officer, alleging the employer improperly calculated her seniority under Appendix COR24 of the collective agreement.

The grievor sought credit for time previously worked at a youth centre and a municipality.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that neither previous employer was part of the Ontario Public Service, and therefore the time worked could not be included in her hours of service for seniority purposes.

The grievor, a correctional officer, received a one-day suspension for failing to submit a timely and accurate Use of Force Occurrence Report regarding an incident he was not present for.

The arbitrator found that while the grievor had promptly informed his supervisor he was not in the area, he later submitted an inaccurate report confusing the date with another incident.

The arbitrator concluded there was no just cause for a suspension but substituted a Letter of Reprimand for the inaccurate report.

The grievance was upheld in part.