Randi H. Abramsky

The union filed grievances on behalf of unclassified employees, alleging they were performing the work of a higher-rated classification and should be paid at that equivalent civil service classification rate under the collective agreement.

The employer raised a preliminary objection, arguing the grievances were disguised classification grievances over which the Grievance Settlement Board lacks jurisdiction under the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act.

The Board agreed with the employer, finding that determining the equivalent classification for wage purposes would require evaluating whether the grievors were performing the work of a different classification, which is a classification issue reserved for the Joint System Subcommittee.

The grievances were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The Employer moved to dismiss the proceeding on the basis that the Union failed to comply with a Board order regarding the production of the grievor's tax returns.

The grievor had made significant efforts to obtain the documents, but faced difficulties due to the unexpected death of her accountant.

The Board found no intentional disregard of the order and concluded that the missing documents were not central to the case.

The motion to dismiss was denied, though further efforts to obtain the tax returns were ordered.

The Union grieved the Employer's interpretation of a Letter of Understanding regarding classification adjustments and a new pay framework for Employment Standards Auditor 2s.

The dispute centered on whether the employees' 'current salary' for placement on the new salary range should be determined as of December 31, 1998, or June 25, 1999 (which would include a 1% general wage increase).

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the Employer properly compared the employees' salary under the old system to the new salary range before applying the 1% increase, and that the resulting wage compression was anticipated by the agreement.

The Union moved for an indefinite adjournment of the arbitration proceedings involving multiple correctional officers who were disciplined and discharged for alleged excessive use of force, pending the outcome of related criminal charges.

The Employer opposed the motion.

The Grievance Settlement Board denied the request for an indefinite adjournment, finding that the delay would be substantial and uncertain, the criminal trial would not resolve all issues or involve all grievors, and the Employer had a legitimate interest in an expeditious hearing.

However, the Board granted a short adjournment until after the scheduled preliminary hearing in the criminal matter.

The grievor sought to have her continuous service date adjusted to include a period of nearly four years during which she worked for the Ministry through a temporary agency, Office Overload, prior to her appointment to the public service.

The Employer moved to dismiss the grievance, arguing that under established Board jurisprudence, service under a third-party contract cannot be included in the calculation of continuous service.

The Union conceded this point.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the grievance, confirming that the collective agreement and applicable jurisprudence do not permit third-party agency work to be counted as service in the public service.

The Union sought interim relief to prevent the Employer from terminating a temporary transfer agreement that allowed the grievor to work at the Milton courthouse instead of her home position at the Dufferin/Finch courthouse.

The grievor alleged the termination was in retaliation for her union activities and grievances.

The Employer argued the termination was due to operational needs and the expiration of the agreement.

The Grievance Settlement Board found it had jurisdiction and that there was an arguable case on the merits.

However, balancing the harm, the Board concluded that the potential harm to the Employer, including operational concerns and ongoing workplace conflict due to harassment allegations, outweighed the inconvenience to the grievor of commuting to the Dufferin/Finch location.

The motion for interim relief was denied.

The grievor was declared surplus and elected to retire under the Surplus Factor 80 program.

He subsequently grieved, claiming entitlement to a separation allowance under Article 20.3 of the collective agreement.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that Article 20.3 applies only to employees who resign, not those who retire.

Furthermore, electing the Factor 80 option requires an employee to waive all other surplus entitlements, including the separation allowance.

During a grievance arbitration regarding whether transcript preparation is bargaining unit work, the Employer requested the complete income tax records of the grievor and other union witnesses.

The Union objected to disclosing the specific financial amounts, arguing they were irrelevant and subject to privacy interests.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that the specific numbers on the tax returns were not arguably relevant to the issues in dispute or to the Employer's potential liability.

The Board ordered the Union to produce redacted tax returns showing only the categories of income and deductions claimed, with all specific numbers and personal information blacked out.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued a procedural order following a conference call.

The Union was ordered to provide particulars regarding the grievor's allegations to the Employer by October 18, 2004.

A mediation-arbitration date was set for November 15, 2004.

The Board noted that if the Union failed to provide the particulars, the Employer could bring a motion to dismiss the grievance.

The Employer brought motions to dismiss a group grievance and a policy grievance concerning overtime pay for transcript preparation, arguing the Union had abandoned identical grievances filed in 1990.

The Employer also moved to strike evidence relating to 1990-1993 settlement discussions on the basis of privilege.

The Grievance Settlement Board denied the motions to dismiss, finding that while the Union's multi-year delay in pursuing the grievances created a rebuttable inference of acquiescence, the specific negotiation history rebutted that inference and the Employer suffered no detriment.

However, the Board granted the motion to strike, ruling that the parties' agreement that their discussions were 'without prejudice or precedent' protected the evidence from being used against the Employer.

The Employer requested particulars and supporting documents regarding the grievor's allegations.

The Union failed to provide the requested particulars, resulting in the adjournment of the scheduled hearing dates.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the Union to provide the requested particulars and documents by a specified date, and ordered the Employer to provide particulars regarding any disciplinary grievances on which it bears the onus.

The Union grieved that five System Services Specialists (Schedule 6 employees) were entitled to call-back pay under the collective agreement when called back to work following their afternoon rotation.

The Employer argued that Schedule 6 employees are not entitled to premium overtime pay and that the grievors do not work a 'scheduled shift' due to the flexible and unpredictable nature of their hours.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that while Schedule 6 status does not automatically preclude call-back pay, the grievors' work lacked a specified time of work starting and ending on set times on a regular basis, meaning they did not have a 'next scheduled shift' within the meaning of the call-back provision.

The Employer brought a motion to dismiss several grievances related to the implementation of a Memorandum of Agreement concerning a new pay framework and the granting of merit increases to certain employees.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievances in part.

The Board found it lacked jurisdiction over general complaints about the pay framework where no dispute existed between the parties, except for specific allegations of non-compliance.

The Board also dismissed grievances alleging that other employees received preferential merit increases, as there was no allegation that the Employer's actions violated the grievors' rights under the collective agreement.

The Union filed grievances alleging the Employer failed to inform employees about their opportunity to buy back pension service during the 1989-1991 window, or provided incorrect information.

The Employer moved to dismiss the grievances, arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction because pension matters were not governed by the collective agreement.

The Grievance Settlement Board agreed, finding that the essential character of the dispute involved statutory pension rights and agreements outside the collective agreement.

As the dispute did not arise from the interpretation, application, administration, or alleged contravention of the collective agreement, the grievances were deemed inarbitrable and dismissed.

The grievor, a probationary full-time customer service representative at the LCBO, was discharged after being caught on hidden camera committing seven acts of theft totaling $376.40 over two days.

The union grieved the discharge, arguing that the grievor's actions were mitigated by depression, Attention Deficit Disorder, and alcohol abuse following a breakup.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that the medical evidence failed to establish a causal connection between the grievor's emotional state and the deliberate, planned thefts.

Given the grievor's probationary status, the seriousness of the breach of trust, and the need for general deterrence, the arbitrator declined to substitute a lesser penalty.

The Union and the Employer sought clarification of a July 9, 2003 Award regarding a job competition for the position of Tax Auditor 5.

The original Award found the Employer's decision not to select Mr. Pestell was unreasonable, but did not explicitly require the Employer to replace the successful candidate, Mr. Gabay, with Mr. Pestell.

The Grievance Settlement Board amended the Award to explicitly substitute Mr. Pestell for Mr. Gabay, noting that the test of reasonableness was applied to all grievors and the Employer's selection of the other six grievors flowed logically from the facts.

The grievor filed grievances alleging he was improperly denied union representation during a meeting with his manager regarding his late arrival at work.

The parties agreed the meeting was non-disciplinary.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievances, finding no general right to union representation under the collective agreement or the Labour Relations Act for non-disciplinary, work-related meetings with management.

The Union grieved the dismissal of a probationary Programmer Analyst, alleging a violation of the collective agreement's just cause provision.

The grievor was hired for an intermediate-level position but demonstrated significant performance deficiencies and a lack of basic programming skills during his probationary period.

The Grievance Settlement Board applied the Bell standard for probationary employees, finding that the Employer provided a fair and reasonable orientation, communicated performance expectations, provided reasonable assistance, and gave the grievor an opportunity to improve.

The Board concluded that the Employer's decision to terminate the grievor for failing to meet the expected standards was reasonable and established just cause.

The grievance was dismissed.

In a grievance arbitration under the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act, a question arose regarding the production of two specific documents from a competition file.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued an order reflecting the employer's agreement to investigate the documents, advise the union of the results, and produce any further arguably relevant documents identified by the selection panel.

The employer raised a preliminary objection regarding the timeliness of a group grievance filed by court reporters alleging they were forced to perform authorized duties on overtime hours without overtime pay.

The employer argued the grievance was untimely because the change in practice occurred years ago.

The union argued it was a continuing grievance.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the grievance alleged an ongoing failure to comply with the overtime requirements of the collective agreement, rather than a single transaction.

The Board concluded the grievance was a continuing grievance and therefore timely, dismissing the employer's preliminary objection.