Ken Petryshen

Eleven correctional officers filed grievances alleging the Employer improperly placed them at the first pay level of their classification upon rehire.

The grievors argued that other rehired officers were placed at a higher level on the grid.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the comparator officers had continued to perform correctional duties at a private facility during their separation, whereas the grievors had not.

The Board concluded the Employer properly exercised its discretion in placing the grievors at the entry level and dismissed the grievances.

The Employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss a grievance filed by a Correctional Officer on the basis of res judicata, relying on a prior decision that dismissed an earlier grievance filed by the same grievor.

The earlier grievance concerned the grievor's date of re-hire and the application of the Re-Hire Policy, while the current grievance alleged discriminatory treatment regarding her rate of pay upon re-hire compared to other similarly situated employees.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the Employer's motion, finding that the facts and legal issues in the two grievances were distinct, and therefore the conditions for res judicata were not met.

In a grievance arbitration concerning the discharge of an employee, the parties made a written request regarding the disclosure of documents.

The Grievance Settlement Board directed the investigator assigned to the grievor's Workplace Discrimination and Harassment Prevention (WDHP) complaint to provide all interview notes and documentation of statements to Employer counsel.

The Employer requested an adjournment of the grievance hearing pending the outcome of a judicial review of a related Grievance Settlement Board decision (the Monk decision) regarding the Board's jurisdiction to award damages for a workplace injury under the health and safety provision of the collective agreement.

The Union opposed the adjournment, arguing it would cause considerable delay and prejudice.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the Employer's request, finding that the balancing of interests favoured proceeding with the hearing, as an adjournment would result in significant delay and the Union was seeking additional remedies not affected by the pending judicial review.

In a grievance arbitration concerning the discharge of an employee for inappropriate use of IT resources, the Union brought preliminary motions regarding document production and an alleged change of grounds.

The Grievance Settlement Board directed the Employer to produce a confidential report prepared for the Deputy Minister, finding it arguably relevant, subject to confidentiality conditions.

The Board dismissed the Union's motion to preclude the Employer from relying on three images and an internet usage log, finding that their use did not constitute an impermissible change of grounds as they fell under the stated ground of inappropriate IT resource use.

The union referred two grievances to the Grievance Settlement Board alleging that a manager threatened the grievor with death and that management failed to investigate.

The employer raised preliminary objections, arguing the grievances were barred by a prior unfair labour practice settlement and were inarbitrable due to a complete failure to follow the grievance procedure.

The Vice-Chair rejected the estoppel and abuse of process arguments, finding the settlement did not preclude the grievances.

However, the Vice-Chair upheld the objection regarding the grievance procedure, as the grievor completely failed to file the grievances with the employer or follow the required steps.

The grievances were dismissed as inarbitrable.

The grievor, returning to work after a disability leave, was placed on a three-month temporary assignment as an Electronic Supervision Resource Officer (ESRO).

During this period, he was job shadowing and was not provided with standard ESRO equipment such as a dedicated office, Ministry vehicle, cell phone, pager, building key, or new identification card.

The union grieved, alleging the employer's failure to provide these resources constituted discrimination on the basis of disability contrary to the collective agreement and the Human Rights Code.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that the employer's decisions regarding equipment were based on the grievor's status as a temporary employee engaged in job shadowing, not his disability.

The union filed a grievance alleging failure to accommodate, intimidation, harassment, and discrimination.

The employer requested particulars of these allegations, which the union had previously agreed to provide but failed to do so.

The Vice-Chair directed the union to provide full written particulars and copies of documents by June 7, 2010.

The Union filed grievances alleging that the Ministry of the Attorney General contravened the Collective Agreement by allowing non-ministry employees to perform bargaining unit work in the Victim/Witness Program.

On consent of the parties, the Grievance Settlement Board ordered the Employer to produce all arguably relevant documentation to Union counsel by June 30, 2010, subject to confidentiality restrictions.

The grievor, a Youth Services Officer with asthma requiring accommodation from cigarette smoke, sought a lateral transfer to the Central East Correctional Centre (CECC).

The Employer denied the transfer, relying on a 2003 arbitration decision that placed the grievor at Brookside Youth Centre as the best accommodation option at the time.

The Grievance Settlement Board allowed the grievance, finding that the prior placement decision did not waive the grievor's transfer rights under the Collective Agreement.

By denying the transfer without claiming an inability to accommodate the grievor at the CECC, the Employer effectively denied him a right because of his disability, breaching the non-discrimination clause.

Three correctional officers (escort officers) were disciplined following the escape of an inmate from a transport bus.

The union grieved the discipline, arguing it was void due to double jeopardy (as they were initially suspended with pay pending investigation) and delay.

The arbitrator found the discipline was not void, as the initial suspension was not a final determination and the delay was not unreasonable.

On the merits of the penalties, the arbitrator upheld a 20-day suspension for the driver, reduced a 20-day suspension to 10 days for an officer who had not been properly trained on the specific rule violated, and substituted a 3-month suspension for the discharge of the senior officer, noting his lengthy discipline-free record and eventual acceptance of responsibility.

The Union requested an adjournment sine die of a hearing scheduled for August 21, 2009, due to the grievor's disruptive conduct in a previous hearing which made it impossible to proceed.

The Employer opposed the adjournment and requested that the case be completed by written argument.

The Vice-Chair granted the adjournment but refused to adjourn the matter sine die, instead fixing a new hearing date to address the Employer's preliminary objections regarding res judicata and abuse of process.

The grievor, a bus driver, was discharged after a passenger complained about a comment she made to other passengers.

The employer alleged the comment was offensive and breached a 'Conditions of Continued Employment' agreement from a previous discipline.

The arbitrator found that, in context, the grievor's comment was an attempt to diffuse a situation after another passenger made a degrading remark about an elderly passenger's English skills.

The arbitrator concluded the grievor did not engage in culpable conduct, allowed the grievance, and ordered reinstatement with full compensation.

The Union requested an adjournment of the hearing scheduled for August 21, 2009, sine die.

The Employer opposed the adjournment and argued the matter should be completed by written submissions.

The Vice-Chair granted the adjournment but not on a sine die basis, rescheduling the hearing to November 13, 2009.

The Union requested an adjournment sine die of a scheduled hearing date because it reasonably believed the grievor, who suffers from PTSD, would behave disruptively, making it impossible to conduct the hearing.

The Employer opposed the adjournment, arguing the proceeding had gone on too long.

The Grievance Settlement Board granted the adjournment, noting the grievor's recent extreme conduct and the likelihood of its repetition.

However, the Board declined to adjourn the matter sine die, instead rescheduling it to a specific date to ensure the proceeding is not left in limbo indefinitely.

The union filed a grievance claiming that a water bomber pilot was entitled to call back pay under the collective agreement when he was required to work prior to his scheduled start time.

The employer argued that the specific terms of the CL-415 Pilot/Co-Pilot Agreement, which amended the collective agreement, disentitled pilots to call back pay.

The arbitrator found that the plain language of the Pilot Agreement provided that all hours worked on a regular workday, including those before the normal start time, were to be accumulated at straight time and credited towards the annual work requirement.

The grievance was dismissed.

During a conference call, the Union requested an adjournment sine die of the upcoming hearing date.

The Employer opposed the request.

The Vice-Chair granted the adjournment but declined to adjourn the matter sine die, instead rescheduling the hearing to a specific date, with reasons to follow.

Two correctional officers grieved the employer's decision to deny them the opportunity to work overtime on their scheduled days off while they were serving disciplinary suspensions.

The union argued that the employer could not unilaterally ban overtime during a suspension because of local overtime protocols, and alternatively, that any denied overtime hours should count towards the suspension period.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that the employer had the statutory authority under the Public Service Act to remove an employee from employment without salary, which includes a ban on working overtime.

The Board further held that the employer was not obliged to credit the grievors with suspension hours for the overtime opportunities they were denied.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued an amendment to its January 7, 2009 decision.

The amendment replaces the last sentence of paragraph 16 to clarify that only the Article 42.10 issue raised by the grievor's February 25, 2008 grievance is dismissed, while any remaining issues from that grievance remain outstanding.

The grievor, a Correctional Officer, developed PTSD and was unable to return to his custodial position.

After receiving LTIP benefits, he returned to work on temporary assignments in a different role.

The Union grieved, arguing that under Article 42.10 of the Collective Agreement, the grievor was entitled to the employment stability provisions of Article 20B, as if he had received a surplus notice.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that Article 42.10 is merely a timing provision that delays the application of Article 20B for employees who have received a surplus notice until they are able to return to full-time employment.

It does not grant access to Article 20B benefits to an employee who has not received a surplus notice.