Janice Johnston

The union filed three grievances alleging that the employer engaged in reprisals contrary to the Occupational Health and Safety Act by issuing disciplinary letters to the grievor following a work refusal and health and safety complaints.

Prior to the hearing, the employer removed the letters from the grievor's file on a without prejudice basis and argued the grievances were moot.

The union sought further declaratory relief and damages.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievances, finding that proceeding with a lengthy hearing on largely moot issues would serve no labour relations purpose.

In a grievance alleging that scheduling employees to work alone on Friday evenings violates the collective agreement's health and safety provisions, the parties raised preliminary motions.

The arbitrator granted the union's request to take a view of the workplace, finding it would assist in assessing the physical setting.

The union's request for production of documents relating to other store locations was partially granted, limited to documents concerning other 'D' stores and general surveys.

The employer's request for particulars was granted, requiring the union to provide details of any specific incidents it intends to rely on.

The union requested a production order for certain documents and records in the control of the employer.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the documents sought may be relevant to the issues and directed the employer to produce attendance cards, job descriptions, weekly schedules, temporary employee assignments, and call-in sheets.

The union filed three grievances on behalf of the grievor alleging improper displacement, violation of seniority provisions, and discrimination.

At the hearing, the grievor, supported by her father, refused to testify.

As the union was unable to put forward any evidence to substantiate the allegations without the grievor's testimony, the employer brought a motion to dismiss.

The Vice-Chair granted the motion and dismissed the grievances due to a lack of evidence.

The union filed a policy grievance challenging the employer's practice of requiring employees to submit to medical examinations by a doctor of the employer's choosing.

The collective agreement allowed the employer to require medical examinations but did not explicitly state the employer could choose the doctor.

The arbitrator held that, absent clear contractual or statutory authority, the employer does not have a general right to compel an employee to be examined by a doctor of the employer's choice when the employee objects, as such examinations are intrusive and implicate privacy rights.

In an ongoing union grievance alleging that the employer's reorganization of work in ODSP offices violated the collective agreement by increasing employee stress and health risks, the union called an expert witness.

Following the expert's testimony, the union requested case management to expedite the complex hearing.

The Grievance Settlement Board directed the employer to provide particulars of its position on the expert's report and scheduled the next hearing day for mediation, requiring persons with settlement authority to attend.

The union filed six grievances alleging that the grievors were improperly denied overtime and statutory holiday pay for a shift worked on December 31, 1999, and January 1, 2000.

The employer argued that the grievors were paid in accordance with Article IHC4.1 of the collective agreement, which stipulates that a shift not commencing and ending on the same calendar day is considered to fall wholly within the calendar day on which it commences.

The Grievance Settlement Board agreed with the employer, finding that Article IHC4.1 applied and the grievors were appropriately compensated.

The grievances were dismissed.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss grievances alleging that its refusal to negotiate a compressed work week schedule (CWWS) violated the collective agreement.

The employer argued that the collective agreement did not compel it to negotiate a CWWS and that the Board lacked jurisdiction.

The union argued that the employer's refusal was discriminatory and violated management rights, health and safety, and overtime provisions.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the preliminary objection, finding that while the employer is not compelled to negotiate a CWWS, its decision not to do so must be made in good faith, for genuine government purposes, and without violating other provisions of the collective agreement, such as the non-discrimination clause.

The Board has jurisdiction to review the employer's decision-making process.

The grievor, a registered nurse, requested one day of special or compassionate leave to sleep before attending her cousin's funeral, as she was scheduled to work the night shift prior.

The employer denied the request, determining that the circumstances were not extraordinary and that there was sufficient time between her scheduled shift and the funeral.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the employer's decision-making process was reasonable, considered the relevant facts, and appropriately applied the criteria set out in its policy for handling special and compassionate leave requests.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the grievance on the basis that it was untimely.

The grievor had failed to attend an interview for a job competition due to illness and was later surplused.

He filed a grievance months after the competition closed and after he was informed his interview would not be rescheduled.

The arbitrator found the grievance was untimely under the collective agreement.

However, applying the factors from Becker Milk and Niagara Hospital, the arbitrator exercised her discretion under section 48(16) of the Labour Relations Act to extend the time limits, noting the serious nature of the grievance (potential link to job loss), the grievor's lack of experience with the grievance process, the relatively short delay, and the lack of substantial prejudice to the employer.

The grievor claimed he was improperly denied the position of income maintenance officer due to an unfair competition.

As the facility where the position was located had closed, the position was no longer available.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the employer to pay the grievor $11,000 in damages for pain and suffering, after which the grievance would be terminated.

The union filed grievances claiming that four employees should have been converted to classified employees during their employment at the Oxford Regional Centre, which subsequently closed.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued an expedited decision directing the employer to pay each grievor $9,000 in damages for pain and suffering, reimburse up to $3,000 for educational courses, allow access to restricted OPS positions for two years, and pay any owed legislated severance pay.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued a consent order declaring that the grievances before it are to be dealt with in accordance with the minutes of settlement signed pertaining to GSB File #1588/95 and #1601/95.

At the hearing for this grievance, the union stated it had no dispute with the employer's actions, and the parties agreed there was no difference between them.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that under section 7(3) of the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act, there must be a difference between the parties for the Board to have jurisdiction.

The grievance was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The parties reached an agreement regarding grievances over holiday pay.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued a consent award directing the employer to review the payroll records of ten individuals to determine if they qualify for and have been paid holiday pay in accordance with the Chew-Simcoe/Gorsky award.

The employer was ordered to provide documentation to the union or pay any moneys owed, after which the grievances would be withdrawn.

The parties reached an agreement regarding a grievance over holiday pay.

The Grievance Settlement Board directed the employer to review the grievor's payroll records to determine if he qualifies for or has been paid holiday pay pursuant to the Corbin and Duckworth decisions.

If the employer cannot demonstrate that the grievor does not qualify or has already been paid, it must pay all moneys owed within ten weeks.

Upon meeting these conditions, the grievance shall be withdrawn.

The Board amended its previous decision dated December 8, 1999, to correct an error.

The application was withdrawn with leave of the Board, rather than adjourned sine die.

The Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) filed a jurisdictional dispute application concerning the assignment of certain HVAC maintenance and repair work to the Operating Engineers rather than the Plumbers.

The Board evaluated the competing claims using established criteria, including employer preference, past practice, and the collective agreement.

The Board determined that the replacement of liquid heating valves requiring system shutdown should have been assigned to a composite crew of Plumbers and Operating Engineers.

The installation of an eye wash stand was declared Plumbers' work.

However, the shutdown and relocation of heating components was found to be properly assigned to the Operating Engineers.

The applicant union applied for certification of construction labourers employed by the responding party.

Following a representation vote in favour of the union, the responding party challenged the Board's constitutional jurisdiction, arguing the employees were engaged in work on a federal property (an interprovincial bridge) and thus fell under federal jurisdiction.

The Board applied the functional test for constitutional jurisdiction and determined that the responding party's primary business was construction, and its involvement with the bridge was temporary and not an integral part of the federal undertaking.

The Board concluded it had jurisdiction and ordered the issuance of certificates to the union.

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the employer violated the Labour Relations Act by taking a collective agreement with a term of less than one year to a final offer vote.

A group of employees filed an application to terminate bargaining rights.

The Board found that the collective agreement did not operate retroactively and therefore its term violated section 58(1) of the Act.

The Board determined the collective agreement commenced on the date of execution, making the termination application untimely.

The unfair labour practice complaint was dismissed as the union's conduct was ambiguous.