Ken Petryshen

The union filed grievances on behalf of four registered nurses who were denied an N 3 nursing allowance by the employer.

The collective agreement provided that the allowance may be paid at the discretion of management.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the employer failed to properly exercise its discretion because the decision-maker did not give due consideration to the merits of each individual request, failed to consider all relevant facts, and made incorrect assumptions without conducting a full inquiry.

The matter was remitted back to the employer for a proper exercise of discretion.

The Union grieved the Employer's decision to deny the grievors the opportunity to move to the interview stage of a competition.

The parties agreed to the disclosure of the POSI questions, scoring protocol, and training materials to Union counsel, subject to strict confidentiality conditions.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued a consent order detailing the conditions, including prohibitions on copying, restrictions on communication outside the arbitration, and the exclusion of specific questions from the written decision.

The Union brought a motion requesting the Grievance Settlement Board to direct the Employer to find a placement for the grievor, a correctional officer with asthma requiring a smoke-free environment, outside of the Central East Correctional Centre (CECC).

The Union alleged the Employer continued to fail to properly accommodate the grievor and enforce the smoking policy.

The Vice-Chair denied the motion, finding that the number of smoke exposures had declined, the Employer had successfully assigned the grievor to smoke-free posts, and there was evidence of improved enforcement of the smoking policy.

The Vice-Chair concluded that the circumstances did not establish that the Employer could not properly accommodate the grievor at the CECC.

The union filed a grievance alleging the employer violated the collective agreement by failing to consider the grievor a Qualified Candidate for a Senior Investigator vacancy.

The grievor claimed he held the 'same job' when he worked as an Investigator for 19 months in the early 1990s.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that the Investigator and Senior Investigator were distinct positions with different levels of experience and leadership responsibilities.

Furthermore, the Senior Investigator job had significantly changed since the 1990s due to the implementation of Bill 15, which required investigators to perform new duties under the Provincial Offences Act.

The Employer brought a motion to dismiss several grievances filed by employees whose Team Lead positions were declared surplus.

The Union alleged that the Employer improperly surplussed the employees by creating a new, higher-paying position with the same duties and responsibilities, thereby violating the Collective Agreement.

The Grievance Settlement Board denied the Employer's motion, finding that the Union's allegations disclosed an arguable case of an improper lay-off.

The matter was directed to continue on its merits.

The grievor, a correctional officer with asthma and sensitivity to cigarette smoke, filed grievances alleging the Employer failed to reasonably accommodate him at the Central East Correctional Centre.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the Employer breached its duty to accommodate by denying him access to the secure part of the facility, restricting his initial post options without considering broader duties, failing to consider modifying a schedule to permit him to work in a specific area, and failing to reasonably police and enforce the smoking policy.

The Board awarded compensation for lost wages during a mental health absence caused by the Employer's conduct, as well as $18,000 in general damages and $12,000 for mental anguish.

The grievor, a Correctional Officer with mental health issues, was accommodated with a specific schedule and limited inmate contact.

A manager, unaware of the specifics of the grievor's mental health needs, held a meeting to announce schedule changes and made comments suggesting the accommodation was short-term and that the grievor could be replaced.

The grievor's mental health subsequently deteriorated.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the Employer discriminated against the grievor and failed in its duty to accommodate by not considering his mental health issues when communicating the changes.

The Board also found that certain comments made by the manager constituted harassment under the Human Rights Code.

The grievance was allowed and the issue of remedy was remitted to the parties.

The Union requested an order directing the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) to produce the complete investigation file relating to a complaint of sexual assault made by the Grievor.

The Grievance Settlement Board granted the request and ordered the OPP to produce the file to Union counsel, subject to conditions including the redaction of personal information of non-parties, confidential law enforcement material, and privileged information, and restricting the use of the records to the current proceeding.

The grievor, a Correctional Officer, grieved the termination of his employment.

The Employer terminated him for allegedly orchestrating an assault by one inmate on another and for withholding information during the subsequent investigation.

The arbitrator found the testimony of the Employer's witnesses credible and concluded that the grievor had participated in a scheme to induce an inmate to assault another inmate who had been charged with sexually assaulting a colleague's step-daughter.

Given the serious breach of trust, the physical assault on an inmate, and the grievor's failure to disclose information, the arbitrator held that the employment relationship was irreparably broken.

The grievance was dismissed.

Three Conservation Officers who are canine handlers filed grievances alleging the Employer failed to properly exercise its discretion when denying certain meal allowance claims.

The parties engaged in a med/arb process.

The Vice-Chair resolved the grievances by issuing a declaration that the Employer will reasonably apply the travel directive in the spirit as intended.

The union filed a group grievance alleging that management improperly exercised its rights with respect to parking.

The Grievance Settlement Board reviewed the facts in light of the collective agreement and found no violation.

The grievance was dismissed.

The Union filed a grievance challenging the discipline imposed on correctional officers following a health and safety work refusal and work stoppage.

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

The Union argued that the timeliness provisions in the Collective Agreement did not apply because the grievance was filed pursuant to a specific Memorandum of Agreement that gave the Union an independent right to grieve.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that the parties did not intend to exclude the application of the Collective Agreement's timeliness provisions when they drafted the Memorandum.

The Employer's preliminary objection regarding timeliness was upheld.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of the grievor challenging the termination of her employment.

Following a hearing on the merits, the Grievance Settlement Board directed the employer to reinstate the grievor to her employment effective May 9, 2013, and remained seized of the grievance to address any outstanding issues.

The grievor alleged that the Employer exercised its management rights in an arbitrary and bad faith manner when it decided to surplus his Communications Advisor/Planner position.

The Employer maintained the decision was based on budget reductions and a focus on core business functions.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the Employer acted in good faith with a genuine intention to carry out a legitimate government objective, and that the decision was reasonable.

The grievance was dismissed.

The Employer requested an adjournment of a scheduled hearing date because its counsel had to travel to the United States to attend to a serious family medical emergency.

The Union opposed the request, citing previous delays and the grievor's interest in concluding the matter.

The Grievance Settlement Board granted the adjournment, finding that the unexpected family emergency warranted the delay and that it would be unreasonable to require the Employer to assign new counsel on short notice.

In a grievance arbitration concerning a layoff, the Union requested the production of a Communications Review report.

The Employer refused.

During a conference call, the Vice-Chair determined that the report was not arguably relevant to the issues in the proceeding, noting the nature of the report, the timing of events, and that the decision-maker was unaware of the report at the relevant time.

The request for production was denied, with leave to revisit the issue if evidence at the hearing demonstrated relevance.

The Union grieved the Employer's decision to surplus 11 Human Resources Assistant positions and assign some of their clerical duties to non-bargaining unit employees following a reorganization and technological upgrade.

The Union argued this violated the implied restriction against assigning bargaining unit work outside the unit.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the transferred duties were incidental, overlapped with non-unit work, and did not constitute enough volume to occupy a non-unit employee for even half a shift, thus failing to trigger the implied restriction.

In a grievance arbitration concerning whether agency staff were performing bargaining unit work at a specific court, the parties agreed to proceed first with the issue at that specific court.

The employer sought to introduce evidence regarding the work performed by similar staff at other courts across the province.

The union objected, arguing the evidence was irrelevant and contrary to their agreement to focus on the single court.

The arbitrator dismissed the union's objection, finding the evidence arguably relevant to determining what constitutes bargaining unit work, and noting the agreement did not explicitly preclude such evidence.

During the hearing of grievances regarding the employer's alleged failure to accommodate the grievor's disability, an evidentiary dispute arose.

The Union sought to put two documents to a management witness during cross-examination and to call reply evidence based on his responses.

The Employer objected to the admission of the documents and the proposed reply evidence.

The Vice-Chair exercised his discretion to permit the Union to put the documents to the witness and to call the reply evidence, noting that relevance and weight would be determined later.

The Union filed a grievance alleging the Employer violated the collective agreement, specifically Appendix 38, by laying off System Officers while retaining IT Consultants to perform work the laid-off employees were capable of doing.

The Union argued the Employer was required to assign the IT work to the System Officers before laying them off.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that Appendix 38 only restricts the use of IT Consultants if it 'directly results' in a layoff.

The Board concluded there was no direct causal link between the work performed by the consultants and the layoffs of the specific employees, as their original positions had been eliminated for unrelated operational reasons.