Owen V. Gray

The union grieved the employer's refusal to reimburse tax auditors for professional membership dues (CA, CMA, CGA).

During the arbitration proceedings, both parties complained about the other's approach to particulars and document production.

The Vice-Chair issued a comprehensive order requiring both parties to deliver written particulars and produce relevant documents.

The Vice-Chair also directed the employer to bring documents regarding the reimbursement of membership dues for employees in other ministries to the next hearing, deferring a final decision on their production.

The union filed grievances regarding the employer's policy on reimbursement of professional dues.

At a hearing, the Grievance Settlement Board ordered the union to provide particulars of its allegations, including claims that the employer benefits from the grievors' professional designations and that the employer acted arbitrarily or in bad faith.

The Board also directed the employer to make reasonable efforts to produce documents related to a 'Taxable Benefits FAQ' concerning the reimbursement of professional fees.

The grievor failed to attend a scheduled hearing before the Grievance Settlement Board.

The Board had previously ordered that failure to attend would result in dismissal of the grievances barring exceptional circumstances.

The grievor sent a fax claiming inability to attend due to family care responsibilities, but the Board found this did not constitute exceptional circumstances, especially given her prior communications and knowledge of the hearing date.

The grievances were dismissed.

The grievor failed to attend a scheduled hearing before the Grievance Settlement Board, despite a prior order stating that failure to attend without exceptional circumstances would result in dismissal.

The union confirmed that the grievor had received notice of the hearing.

Finding no exceptional circumstances, the Vice-Chair dismissed the grievances.

The union referred a grievance regarding the cancellation of a job competition to arbitration nearly 15 months after the employer's stage two response.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the referral was untimely under Article 22.4 of the collective agreement.

The Grievance Settlement Board upheld the objection, finding that the collective agreement deemed the grievance withdrawn if not processed within the prescribed time, and the Board had no jurisdiction to extend the time limit.

The grievance was dismissed as inarbitrable.

The parties settled a competition grievance with Minutes of Settlement requiring the grievor to pass a spreadsheet test similar to the original competition question.

The grievor failed the administered test, and the union requested a hearing, asserting the test was not similar.

The Vice-Chair agreed the test was not similar and directed that a new, similar test be administered, with the parties agreeing on the terms for the new test.

The union filed a group grievance alleging that the grievors' continuous service dates should include a period from 1983 to 1986 when they worked at the Southwest Regional Centre as nominal independent contractors or third-party employees.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that even if the grievors were in substance Crown employees during that period, they were not appointed to the unclassified service as required by the collective agreement for seniority credit.

The Grievance Settlement Board agreed, finding that the collective agreement only grants credit for specific types of Crown employment, namely appointment to the unclassified service under the Public Service Act.

As the grievors were not so appointed during the disputed period, the grievance was dismissed.

The grievor, a Finance Officer with the Ministry of Education, was re-elected as a school board trustee.

The Ministry determined that holding both positions constituted a conflict of interest under the Public Service Act and required him to resign his employment.

When he refused, the Ministry deemed him to have resigned.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that a conflict of interest did exist because the grievor had access to confidential Ministry information that could benefit a school board.

However, because the Ministry had previously permitted him to hold both roles and failed to give him timely notice of its changed position, the Board modified the penalty, allowing the grievor 60 days to resign his trustee position and be reinstated to his employment.

The union filed individual and policy grievances alleging the employer violated the collective agreement by changing an employee's anniversary date upon promotion.

The employer argued that its Manual of Administration defined a promotional increase in a way that justified the change, and sought to introduce evidence of past practice.

The arbitrator excluded the past practice evidence because the employer failed to provide particulars as previously ordered.

On the merits, the arbitrator found the collective agreement clearly and unambiguously allowed an employee in the grievor's circumstances to retain their pre-promotion anniversary date.

The grievances were allowed.

The union requested a hearing regarding the implementation of a Memorandum of Settlement.

A conference call was held, during which it was revealed that the grievor had pending unfair labour practice proceedings against the union at the OLRB.

The union and employer subsequently agreed that there was no dispute between them regarding the meaning of the settlement provision in question.

As there was no outstanding request for relief, the Vice-Chair cancelled the scheduled hearing.

The grievor, an administrative assistant, alleged that the employer discriminated against her on the basis of race and union activity during a temporary assignment and when she was denied a subsequent temporary position in the Blood Program.

The employer maintained that the grievor lacked the necessary skills for the temporary assignment, which was not extended due to performance issues and lack of need.

The subsequent position was awarded to a more qualified candidate following an interview process.

The Grievance Settlement Board found no evidence of bad faith, racial discrimination, or anti-union animus in the employer's actions.

The grievance was dismissed.

The union grieved that the employer contravened the collective agreement's requirement to defer a classification system overhaul by introducing a modernized job description format and a new internal job evaluation decision-making process.

The arbitrator found that the new internal process merely changed who made decisions on the employer's behalf and did not alter the classification system itself.

Furthermore, the modernized job description format only made changes of form, not substance, and did not affect the application of the existing classification standards.

The grievance was dismissed, though the arbitrator noted the Board would have jurisdiction to enforce the collective agreement's classification provisions despite section 52 of the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act.

The parties filed a joint submission concerning several grievances related to Continuous Service Dates (CSD).

The union withdrew the grievances of four grievors and agreed it could not dispute the employer's CSD calculations for four other grievors.

The parties agreed that any new documentation of full-time weeks worked would be considered on its merits, but would not affect surplus notices already issued.

The Grievance Settlement Board noted the withdrawals and dismissed the remaining grievances in accordance with the joint submission.

The union filed a grievance regarding the calculation of the grievor's Continuous Service Date, arguing that her prior work on the Best Ever Ontario Program should be credited as service in the Ontario Public Service.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the union offered no tenable basis for its challenge, as the grievor was not appointed to the public service prior to April 1, 1989, and the collective agreement did not provide credit for periods of employment that were not the result of appointment to the public service.

The grievance was dismissed.

The grievor, an International Market Consultant, was reassigned to different duties during a workplace reorganization.

Although his job classification and pay remained the same, he grieved the reassignment, alleging it constituted age discrimination under the collective agreement.

The union argued that the employer's new human resources strategy, which emphasized youth recruitment, created a climate that favoured younger workers.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding no direct evidence that age was a factor in the specific decision to reassign the grievor, and accepting the manager's testimony that the decision was based on operational needs and staffing levels.

The union filed written submissions regarding several continuous service date (CSD) grievances.

Several grievances were settled or undisputed and thus dismissed.

For the grievance of Shirley Farmer, the union argued she should receive credit for a 122-day maternity leave taken prior to her appointment to the classified service, asserting that failing to do so constituted adverse effect discrimination.

The Vice-Chair applied a previous decision, finding that the combined effect of the collective agreement and the Employment Standards Act prior to December 20, 1990, did not constitute discrimination on the basis of sex under the Human Rights Code.

The grievance was dismissed.

The grievor, an administrative secretary, filed grievances alleging that the employer discriminated against her on the basis of race and union activity by denying her training, secondments, and promotional opportunities.

The union argued that the employer's failure to follow through on recommendations from an internal investigation and a grievance response to conduct a performance review and provide training plans justified an inference of discrimination.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievances, finding that the grievor's subjective belief of discrimination was insufficient and that there was no objective evidence to support an inference that race or union activity played a role in the employer's decisions.

The union grieved that the employer failed to assign the grievor, a Customer Service Representative, to be in charge of the store during afternoon shifts when the store manager and assistant manager were absent, arguing that such assignments should be based on seniority.

The union claimed these assignments constituted filling a temporary vacancy under the collective agreement.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that assigning an employee to be in charge of a shift and paying them a premium did not amount to appointing them to a temporary vacancy in a higher classification, and therefore the seniority provisions for temporary appointments did not apply.

Two purchasing agents in Sault Ste.

Marie grieved their surplus notices, alleging discrimination for union activity and breaches of the collective agreement's redeployment and relocation provisions.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the discrimination claim for lack of evidence.

The Board also found that the employer did not violate the surplusing provisions, as the work area for the positions was limited to the Sault Ste.

Marie district.

However, the Board held that the employer breached Appendix 13 by moving the purchasing operation's headquarters to Thunder Bay without offering the remaining full-time position to the most senior affected employee.

The grievance of the senior employee was allowed, while the junior employee's grievance was dismissed.

The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit consisting of all employees of the respondent, including both warehouse and office/clerical staff.

The respondent employer and objecting employees argued that office and clerical staff should be placed in a separate bargaining unit, relying on historical Board policy.

The Board rejected the argument that exceptional circumstances were required to combine the groups, noting that modern workplaces have evolved.

Applying the community of interest test, the Board found that the employees shared common hours, benefits, wage determination methods, and frequently transferred between office and warehouse roles.

The Board concluded that the all-employee unit was appropriate and certified the applicant.