Ken Petryshen

The Employer raised a preliminary objection that the Union's grievance concerning the transfer of the Lakehead Psychiatric Hospital to St. Joseph's Care Group was untimely.

The Union alleged that the transfer agreement did not comply with the collective agreement regarding terms and conditions of employment and financial incentives.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the time for filing the grievance began to run when the Union received the transfer agreement in February 2000, not when it was advised in April 2003 that the financial incentive had not been paid.

The grievance was dismissed as untimely.

Following a previous decision requiring employees on a 'B' list to repay a portion of their wages for a shift they did not work, the parties were unable to agree on the composition of the list.

The Union argued that no employees should be on the list due to inconsistencies in scheduling documents.

The Vice-Chair rejected this argument and determined which specific employees should be removed from the list, finalizing the 'B' list of employees required to make the repayment.

During a hearing regarding a bargaining unit integrity grievance, the Union requested production of a contract between the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services and Collective Minds Consulting Incorporated.

The Grievance Settlement Board found the document arguably relevant and directed the Employer to provide a copy to the Union's counsel, with specific references to payment deleted.

The grievor, a Correctional Officer with asthma and a sensitivity to cigarette smoke, required workplace accommodation.

The Grievance Settlement Board previously found the Employer could not accommodate him at his home position and directed placement elsewhere.

The parties disputed whether the appropriate placement was at Brookside Youth Centre, Toronto West Detention Centre, or Central East Correctional Centre.

The Board determined Brookside was the most appropriate placement due to a significantly lower risk of exposure to cigarette smoke, as youth facilities have had a smoke-free policy for over ten years and the physical structure reduces risk.

The Union's claim for mileage for the additional travel distance to Brookside was dismissed, as the employee is obliged to cooperate reasonably with accommodation efforts and the additional distance was not significant.

The parties entered into a Memorandum of Settlement to address applications before the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding events at the Toronto West Detention Centre.

The Vice-Chair of the Grievance Settlement Board was granted jurisdiction to determine employees' entitlement to pay for shifts commencing on November 6, 2001.

The Vice-Chair ordered the parties to meet locally to determine who is properly on the 'B' list, and directed that those properly on the list shall have the equivalent of one-third of their pay for that shift returned to the Ministry.

The grievor, a Correctional Officer with asthma and a sensitivity to cigarette smoke, required accommodation after it was determined he could not be accommodated at his home position at the Toronto East Detention Centre.

The Employer offered a position at the Toronto West Detention Centre, which the grievor rejected.

The Grievance Settlement Board determined that the appropriate placement for the grievor was at the Brookside Youth Centre.

The Board also dismissed the Union's claim that the grievor was entitled to a mileage rate for the additional 19 kilometers he would be required to travel to Brookside.

The grievor, a Correctional Officer, suffered a permanent disability that prevented him from having direct contact with inmates.

The Employer accommodated him for a period by assigning him exclusively to the control module, a duty normally rotated among officers.

When medical evidence confirmed he would not be able to resume full duties, the Employer permanently reassigned him to a newly created Security Officer 2 position in the control module at a lower rate of pay.

The Union grieved, arguing he was still performing Correctional Officer duties and should receive that rate of pay.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that direct inmate contact is an essential duty of a Correctional Officer.

Since the grievor could not perform the essential duties even with accommodation, the Employer was entitled under the collective agreement to reassign him to a classification consistent with his medical restrictions.

During the cross-examination of an employer witness, it became apparent that notes taken during meetings with employees as part of a disciplinary process had not been provided to the union.

The union requested a production order to ensure the employer produced all documents relating to testimony to be given by the employer's final three witnesses.

The Grievance Settlement Board granted the request and ordered the employer to produce all documents related to the e-mail investigation, including notes from meetings and documents in the possession of specific individuals.

The Union filed a grievance alleging the Employer violated the Collective Agreement by using agency staff and consultants to perform bargaining unit work.

The parties agreed on a procedural protocol for litigating the grievance but could not agree on the number of mediation/arbitration dates to schedule each month.

The Vice-Chair ordered that 5 mediation/arbitration dates be scheduled each month commencing in November 2003, balancing the number of work areas involved with the Employer's disclosure obligations and the need to avoid a backlog of other grievances.

Ten grievances were filed by five correctional officers alleging the Employer refused to pay full WSIB benefits on holidays and discriminated against them by not reporting holiday time to the WSIB.

The grievors were absent due to work-related injuries and received WSIB benefits.

The union argued the Employer was obliged to pay a 15% salary top-up for holidays under the collective agreement.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievances, finding that under the specific language of the collective agreement, employees absent on a holiday are not entitled to their salary, and the Employer satisfied its obligations by paying holiday pay.

The Board also found no discrimination on the basis of disability, as all employees who did not work a scheduled holiday were treated the same.

The union sought compensation for a grievor's lost promotional opportunities and lost overtime arising from the employer's failure to accommodate his sensitivity to second-hand smoke.

The arbitrator dismissed the claim for lost promotional opportunities, finding the employer properly denied an acting position that would have placed the grievor in a smoke-filled environment.

The arbitrator granted the claim for lost overtime in part, awarding compensation based on an average of 5 lost overtime hours per month since 1994.

The parties resolved some outstanding issues arising from grievances filed by the grievor, a Correctional Officer with asthma who requires a smoke-free workplace.

The Grievance Settlement Board determined three remaining issues: (1) the Employer's offer of accommodation at a facility further from the grievor's home was not unreasonable based solely on the additional travel time and distance; (2) the grievor was entitled to interest on the amount paid for credits used to top up sick leave; and (3) the grievor was entitled to compensation for statutory holidays missed due to the Employer's failure to accommodate him.

During a grievance arbitration regarding employees' entitlement to pay for a specific shift, the Union requested an adjournment because the Local Union President, who was acting as an advisor, was hospitalized and unable to attend.

The Vice-Chair denied the blanket adjournment request, noting that the Union had three other Local Union executive board members available to instruct counsel.

The Vice-Chair ruled that the hearing could proceed with the Union's evidence, and the Union could renew its adjournment request later if disputed evidence regarding the absent advisor's conduct arose.

The union requested an adjournment of a grievance arbitration hearing because its primary advisor was hospitalized.

The employer opposed the request, noting the parties' commitment to an expeditious resolution.

The arbitrator held that the advisor's absence alone was insufficient to adjourn the hearing, as the union had three other advisors.

However, given the suddenness of the illness, the arbitrator granted the adjournment for the immediate hearing date but ordered that subsequent dates would proceed regardless.

The grievor, a Correctional Officer with asthma and a sensitivity to cigarette smoke, filed grievances alleging the Employer failed to accommodate his handicap by not providing a smoke-free environment at the Toronto Jail.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that despite assigning the grievor to designated non-smoking areas, the Employer failed to adequately enforce its smoking policy, resulting in frequent exposure to smoke by staff and managers.

The Board concluded the Employer failed to accommodate the grievor to the point of undue hardship and ordered compensation for losses resulting from absences caused by smoke exposure.

The Employer disciplined 66 employees, discharging six, for contravening the Workplace Discrimination and Harassment Prevention policy and the IT policy by sending and receiving sexually explicit and inappropriate e-mails.

The Union grieved the discharges, arguing they were an excessive response.

In a preliminary phase to determine if the discharges could possibly be upheld based on the Employer's best case, the arbitrator found that the grievors engaged in serious misconduct by distributing highly offensive material, which contributed to a poisoned work environment.

The arbitrator concluded that the discharges could potentially be upheld, denying reinstatement at this stage and directing the hearing to continue on the merits.

The Grievance Settlement Board evaluated the Employer's proposal to accommodate a Correctional Officer with asthma and sensitivity to cigarette smoke by assigning him temporarily to the administrative offices of the Toronto East Detention Centre.

The Board found the proposal unreasonable because the grievor would still be exposed to cigarette smoke in other areas of the institution, such as the locker room and washroom, due to ongoing violations of the smoking policy.

The Employer was directed to attempt to accommodate the grievor at a location other than the Toronto East Detention Centre.

The Union filed a grievance alleging the Employer failed to pay retroactive wage adjustments as soon as reasonably possible following the ratification of Memoranda of Settlement.

The Union sought interim relief ordering the Employer to pay the negotiated rates and all retroactivity owing by specific dates.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the application, finding that while the Union had an arguable case, the balance of convenience did not favour altering the status quo.

The Board concluded that the alleged breach could be adequately addressed with damages in the form of interest at the conclusion of the proceeding.

Following a prior decision finding that the employer failed to accommodate the grievor's occupational asthma and sensitivity to cigarette smoke, the employer proposed assigning the grievor to the control room at the Toronto East Detention Centre.

The grievor rejected the proposal, arguing he would still be exposed to second-hand smoke.

The Grievance Settlement Board found the employer's proposal unreasonable, as evidence demonstrated a fairly high risk of exposure to cigarette smoke in the control room.

The Board held that the grievor's decision not to try the accommodation was not unreasonable.

The Union filed a grievance alleging the Employer failed to comply with Memoranda of Settlement requiring retroactive wage adjustments to be paid as soon as reasonably possible.

At the hearing, the Employer requested an adjournment.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the adjournment motion and scheduled further hearing dates to proceed with the matter.