M. Brian Keller

The grievor, a Correctional Officer, was discharged.

In a previous decision, the Grievance Settlement Board substituted a suspension for the discharge and directed the parties to agree on its length.

The parties could not agree, with the employer seeking a 10-month suspension and the union proposing six months.

The Board determined that a six-month suspension was appropriate, finding it sufficient for deterrence and corrective purposes, and ordered the grievor to be made whole for the period between the end of the suspension and his return to work.

The grievor, a Correctional Officer, was discharged for violating the Workplace Discrimination and Harassment Policy (WDHP).

The union grieved the discharge, arguing the penalty was excessive compared to other employees who committed similar violations but were only suspended.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that while the grievor's violations were more significant, the essential nature of the violations was not so qualitatively different as to warrant discharge.

The Board declined to sustain the discharge and remitted the matter to the parties to agree on an appropriate suspension.

The union filed a health and safety grievance alleging that the HVAC system at the Toronto Jail required cleaning.

The matter proceeded via an Expedited Mediation-Arbitration Protocol.

The Vice-Chair allowed the grievance and ordered the employer to forthwith implement the recommendations from the Ontario Realty Corporation's assessment report regarding the HVAC system.

The Union and the Employer participated in an expedited mediation/arbitration process to resolve grievances arising from the implementation of an Attendance Support and Management Pilot Program.

The grievor challenged the application of the program.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that it was based on an imperfect understanding of the law and lacked merit.

The Union alleged that the Employer failed to comply with a Memorandum of Settlement regarding a letter of reference.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the letter of reference provided by the Employer met its obligations under the Memorandum of Settlement.

Following a mediation session regarding grievances over a use of force investigation, the parties could not agree on whether a memorandum should be posted by the employer.

The union sought to have the memorandum posted to confirm that an allegation of racial motivation was unfounded.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the employer to post the memorandum, finding it would have a healing effect and cause no prejudice to the employer.

The request for compensation was denied.

The union referred several grievances concerning employee discipline to mediation/arbitration in accordance with the collective agreement and the Corrections Med/Arb Protocol.

At the outset of the hearing, the parties agreed to have the Vice-Chair exercise jurisdiction to decide the matter and requested a decision without reasons.

The Vice-Chair ordered the parties to comply with a confidential order attached as an appendix to the decision.

The employer disciplined approximately 140 correctional officers at the Ottawa-Carleton Detention Centre following an IT forensics investigation that revealed significant improper use of workplace computers, including accessing inappropriate and sexually explicit material.

The union filed 121 grievances challenging the level of discipline.

The Grievance Settlement Board upheld the employer's zero-tolerance policy for abuse of IT resources, noting that the behaviour was wrong and warranted discipline.

The Board modified the level of discipline in some individual cases and ordered the employer to restrict internet access for correctional officers at the facility until January 2011.

The union grieved the employer's blanket requirement that all employees who claimed sick leave over the Thanksgiving weekend produce a medical certificate.

The union argued this violated article 44.10 of the collective agreement, which requires an individual determination of suspected abuse.

The employer argued it had the right to request certificates in the face of suspected concerted activity.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that while the employer may seek medical certificates on a blanket basis in the face of concerted activity, it failed to meet its evidentiary burden to prove such activity occurred in this case.

The grievances were allowed.

The union filed grievances seeking compensation for missed overtime opportunities for acting operational managers at the Stratford Jail.

The parties referred the grievances to mediation/arbitration.

The arbitrator found that at the time of the grievances, the grievors were in management positions outside the bargaining unit.

Consequently, the Board lacked jurisdiction to deal with the grievances, and they were dismissed.

The union filed a grievance regarding a job competition for a Temporary Acting Operations Management position and its subsequent cancellation, seeking the grievor's re-appointment.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that at the time of the grievance, the grievor was in a management position outside the bargaining unit.

As the Board's jurisdiction does not extend to employees in management positions, the grievance was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant union applied for certification.

The respondent employer argued that the applicant had not proven it was a trade union within the meaning of section 1(1)(p) of the Labour Relations Act because its name on the application deviated slightly from the name previously recognized by the Board.

The Board heard evidence and concluded that the applicant was the same organization previously granted trade union status.

Applying section 105 of the Act, the Board found the previous determination was prima facie evidence of its status.

The Board cautioned applicants to use their exact recognized names to avoid unnecessary hearings, but granted the certification for the agreed bargaining unit.