Ken Petryshen

The Union filed twenty-three policy grievances under the Bargaining Unit Integrity (BUI) Protocol, each naming an entire Ministry.

The Employer objected, arguing the Protocol did not contemplate grievances framed so broadly, as it would make the required disclosure obligations impossible to meet within the stipulated six-week timeframe.

The Grievance Settlement Board agreed with the Employer, finding that the language of the Protocol, which refers to 'units, branches, departments, or offices', indicates an intention to identify areas smaller than a Ministry to ensure the process can be managed efficiently.

The grievances were dismissed.

The union filed a grievance alleging the employer failed to accommodate the grievor's temporary ankle injury by refusing to provide modified duties.

The grievance was filed approximately ten months after the employer's refusal, well beyond the time limits in the collective agreement.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the time for filing began when the employer communicated its refusal, not when the grievor later learned another employee had been accommodated.

Applying the factors for extending time limits under section 48(16) of the Labour Relations Act, the Board concluded there were no reasonable grounds for an extension due to the extreme delay and the grievor's lack of due diligence.

The grievance was dismissed as untimely.

The union filed a grievance alleging the employer contravened the collective agreement by failing to provide modified duties to a correctional officer who sustained an ankle injury.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the grievance was untimely.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the time for filing the grievance started to run when the employee was advised she could not start work with modified duties, not ten months later when she learned another employee was working with an air cast.

The Board declined to extend the time limits under section 48(16) of the Labour Relations Act, finding no reasonable grounds.

The grievance was dismissed.

The union grieved that an employee was not paid correctly for working two call backs on the Thanksgiving Day paid holiday.

The employee received premium pay and holiday pay under the holiday payment provision of the collective agreement, but the union argued he was also entitled to an additional 8 hours of pay under the general holiday provision.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the holiday payment provision constitutes a complete code for compensating employees who work on a paid holiday, and there is no independent entitlement to additional holiday pay under the general holiday provision.

The grievor, a bus driver, was terminated for allegedly breaching a Conditions of Continued Employment agreement by making an offensive comment to passengers.

The union grieved the discharge and the preceding suspension.

In a 'bottom line' decision issued prior to full reasons, the arbitrator found that the employer failed to demonstrate just cause for termination.

The employer was directed to reinstate the grievor forthwith, with the arbitrator remaining seized to determine what penalty, if any, should be substituted.

The union filed grievances on behalf of correctional officers claiming they were improperly placed at the first step of the pay range upon being rehired, unlike other rehired officers.

Following a prior decision confirming jurisdiction, the Grievance Settlement Board held a conference call to discuss procedural issues.

The Vice-Chair directed the union to provide written statements detailing each grievor's employment history and the basis for their claim.

The employer was directed to respond with reasons for the placement and information regarding the comparator group.

The scheduled hearing dates were adjourned to May 2008.

The grievor, a Youth Services Officer with asthma triggered by cigarette smoke, filed grievances alleging the Employer failed to accommodate his disability at the Brookside Youth Centre.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that while the Employer took some steps, it failed to take all reasonable steps to accommodate the grievor to the point of undue hardship, such as designating smoking areas away from building entrances.

The Employer was directed to compensate the grievor for monetary losses attributable to exposures on the grounds and to meet with the Union to discuss further accommodation.

However, the Board found the grievor was not entitled to be paid for a period he unilaterally absented himself from work.

The Grievance Settlement Board previously issued a bottom-line decision substituting the grievor's discharge with a three-month suspension and directing his reinstatement.

The parties entered into an interim return to work agreement but could not agree on the grievor's permanent assignment location.

Following representations from counsel, the Vice-Chair directed the employer to assign the grievor to the Mimico Correctional Centre as a classified Correctional Officer 2 upon completion of his basic training.

The Union filed grievances on behalf of Correctional Officers who were rehired after a separation of more than six months and placed at the first step of the CO2 salary range.

The Union alleged that other similarly situated rehired employees were placed at higher steps, and that the Employer exercised its discretion unreasonably, arbitrarily, or in bad faith.

The Employer raised a preliminary objection that the grievances were inarbitrable because they did not allege a violation of the collective agreement and relied on an external rehire policy.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the preliminary objection, finding that the essential character of the dispute concerned the placement of the grievors within the salary range of the CO2 classification, which is a matter of administering the pay provisions of the collective agreement.

The Board concluded it had jurisdiction to hear the grievances on their merits.

Three provincial bailiffs grieved their discipline (two 20-day suspensions and one discharge) following an incident where an inmate escaped from their transport bus.

The Union argued the discipline was void due to double jeopardy and delay, but conceded some culpable conduct.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued a 'bottom line' decision, rejecting the double jeopardy and delay arguments.

The Board substituted the discharge with a three-month suspension, reduced one 20-day suspension to 10 days, and upheld the other 20-day suspension.

The Union filed grievances on behalf of three employees, arguing that their vacation entitlement should be based on their adjusted seniority dates, which were established through prior Minutes of Settlement, rather than their appointment dates to full-time positions.

The Employer maintained that under the collective agreement, vacation credits accumulate based on months of service, which corresponds to the appointment date.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievances, finding that the collective agreement distinguishes between service and seniority, and that the Minutes of Settlement did not alter the grievors' appointment dates for the purpose of vacation entitlement.

The union grieved the employer's determination that the grievor did not meet the minimum requirements for the posted position of Workwell Evaluator.

The union argued that the employer applied a higher standard during the screening process than what was set out in the job posting.

The arbitrator found that while the employer may have used a higher standard for the Health & Safety requirement, the grievor clearly did not meet the minimum requirement for Program Evaluation, which required basic knowledge of auditing health and safety programs against known standards.

As the grievor failed to meet this requirement, the grievance was dismissed.

In a bargaining unit integrity grievance, the Union claimed that services provided by Native Inmate Liaison Officers constituted bargaining unit work.

A service provider, White Buffalo Road Healing Lodge Inc., previously denied intervener status, requested the opportunity to make submissions regarding another union's motion for standing and to reconsider its own standing.

The Grievance Settlement Board denied the requests, noting that no one appeared on behalf of White Buffalo at the hearing, it lacked standing as a non-party, and the Board does not have the statutory power to reconsider its decisions.

The Union filed a grievance claiming that the insurer was holding an excessive amount of employee funds in the Guaranteed Unrestricted Deposit Account (GUDA) and sought confirmation of employee ownership of these funds, disclosure of underwriting documents, and a premium holiday.

The Employer raised a preliminary objection that the grievance was not arbitrable because the collective agreement did not explicitly cover the administration of the GUDA or surplus funds.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the Employer's objection, finding that the essential character of the dispute arose implicitly from the collective agreement provisions requiring employees to pay premiums for insured benefits.

The grievance was ruled arbitrable and allowed to proceed to a hearing on the merits.

The Union filed grievances on behalf of rehired Correctional Officers, challenging the Ministry's decision to place them at a lower rate of pay than they previously held, alleging differential treatment compared to other rehired employees.

The Vice-Chair entertained submissions on the remedial issue but reserved the decision, directing that the matter be set down for a hearing to address the Ministry's preliminary objection regarding the Grievance Settlement Board's jurisdiction to entertain the grievances.

During an arbitration concerning the discipline of three officers following an inmate escape from a transport bus, the Union sought disclosure of letters of counsel issued to three other officers involved in a similar incident.

The Employer opposed the request, offering instead to stipulate the facts of the other incident and raising privacy concerns.

The Grievance Settlement Board ruled that the requested documents were arguably relevant to the Union's claim of discriminatory treatment and that the privacy interests of the other officers did not preclude production.

The Employer was ordered to provide the letters of counsel to the Union.

The union brought a motion for non-suit at the conclusion of the employer's case in a discharge grievance involving a correctional officer accused of unjustified and excessive use of force on an inmate.

The union argued the employer failed to call evidence supporting the discharge.

Applying the standard of whether there is some evidence to support the claim, interpreted most favourably to the employer, the arbitrator found the employer had made out a prima facie case.

The motion for non-suit was dismissed without detailed reasons, in accordance with the parties' agreement and board practice.

The union filed grievances alleging the employer failed to properly accommodate the grievor's asthma and sensitivity to cigarette smoke at a youth centre.

Prior to the hearing, the employer requested the grievor's complete decoded OHIP summary and clinical notes from all medical practitioners since June 2004.

The union opposed the breadth of the request, arguing it violated the grievor's privacy rights, and proposed providing a specific medical report from the grievor's family doctor instead.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the employer's broad request, finding it too invasive as the grievor was not making a generalized claim placing his entire medical history in issue.

The Vice-Chair directed the grievor to provide a medical report responding to specific questions about his asthma, absences, and stress-related problems.

The union filed grievances on behalf of unclassified employees claiming entitlement to merit pay.

The employer objected that the grievances were untimely because they were filed months after the implementation of a new ministry policy on merit increases.

The Grievance Settlement Board found the grievances were timely because the employees only subjectively became aware of their right to grieve shortly before filing.

On the issue of retroactivity, the Board declined to award full retroactivity to the employees' dates of hire, instead applying the standard 20-day retroactivity rule, limiting compensation to the period commencing 20 days prior to the filing of the grievances.

The Union filed a bargaining unit integrity grievance alleging that the Employer violated the collective agreement by using fee-for-service Native Inmate Liaison Officers (NILOs) to perform bargaining unit work.

Several Service Providers who employ the NILOs sought intervener status in the arbitration.

The Grievance Settlement Board denied the request, finding that the Service Providers' interest was merely indirect and contingent on their commercial contracts with the Employer.

Because the core dispute concerned whether the work belonged to the bargaining unit, the Service Providers lacked the direct interest in labour or employment law required to justify third-party standing.