Marilyn Nairn

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance pursuant to Article 22.16 of the Collective Agreement, following submissions from the parties.

The union filed grievances alleging that the employer violated the collective agreement by denying the grievors the opportunity to perform overtime work at the Vanier Centre for Women in Brampton while they were working at the Milton location.

The parties referred the grievances to mediation/arbitration.

The arbitrator found that the union failed to demonstrate a violation of the collective agreement and dismissed the grievances.

The union filed a grievance asserting that Privacy Officers employed by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board should be included in the 'all employee' bargaining unit.

The employer argued they should be excluded under the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act due to a conflict of interest arising from their duties, which involve privacy compliance, investigating privacy breaches, and advising management.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the Privacy Officers do not exercise managerial functions or act in a confidential capacity regarding labour relations.

Their duties do not create a conflict of interest with being members of the bargaining unit.

The grievance was allowed, and the Privacy Officers were included in the bargaining unit.

The employer requested an adjournment of scheduled hearing dates pending the potential conversion of the grievor's position, which would resolve a significant aspect of the grievances.

The Grievance Settlement Board granted the adjournment, noting that the conversion issue was likely to be resolved without litigation and that the employer's representative was no longer available for the scheduled dates.

The Board directed the employer to advise the union of the conversion results by a specified date and ordered the parties to schedule a mediation day for any remaining issues.

The union filed a grievance regarding whether Privacy Officers employed by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board are members of the bargaining unit.

Following a hearing, the arbitrator issued a bottom-line decision finding that the five persons currently employed as Privacy Officers are Crown employees and are included in the bargaining unit under the collective agreement's recognition clause.

Written reasons were to follow.

The employer requested an adjournment of scheduled hearing dates because its representative was leaving the Ministry and no replacement was available.

The union opposed the request.

The Vice-Chair directed the employer to provide information regarding the grievor's claim for convertible service and the name of the new representative by July 8, 2003, before ruling on the adjournment request.

The parties referred a grievance regarding the custodial responsibility allowance and the correctional category wage increase at the Toronto Jail to mediation/arbitration.

At the request of the parties, the Vice-Chair issued a without prejudice decision with no reasons.

The grievance was dismissed.

The union referred a grievance regarding Article 44.10 at the Toronto Jail to mediation/arbitration under the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act.

At the hearing, the parties requested a without prejudice decision with no reasons.

The Vice-Chair directed the employer to provide evidence of full repayment to the grievor for all affected shifts, resolving the grievance.

The parties referred grievances regarding holiday payment and overtime work on statutory holidays to mediation/arbitration.

The parties requested a without prejudice decision with no reasons.

The arbitrator found that the Employer applied the Collective Agreement in accordance with its language.

The applicant employer and responding unions disputed the precise parameters of the nurses' bargaining unit following a merger of health care facilities under the Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act, 1997.

The primary issue was whether Clinical Nurse Specialists and employee health nurses should be included in the merged unit.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board ruled that the interim negotiated bargaining unit description, which excluded these positions, should continue to apply to the fully merged unit.

The Board reasoned that maintaining the interim agreement would minimize disruption and avoid protracted litigation over employee status under section 1(3) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The applicant employer sought review of an Order to Pay issued by an Employment Standards Officer, which found that the claimant had been constructively dismissed when her night shift was eliminated.

The claimant, who worked nights to accommodate childcare needs, refused an offer to work the same job on a different shift.

The Board held that working the night shift was not an essential term of the employment contract, as the employer's policies explicitly allowed for shift changes.

The Board concluded that the claimant quit her employment and, alternatively, refused a reasonable offer of alternate work.

The appeal was allowed and the Order to Pay was rescinded.