Randi H. Abramsky

The Union sought disclosure of the grievors' email accounts and lists of other employees disciplined as a result of the same workplace investigation.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the Employer to provide the requested email accounts and lists detailing the discipline of both OPSEU and non-OPSEU employees, subject to the condition that the disclosure be used solely for the purpose of the litigation.

Following a previous award directing the parties to resolve a cancelled job competition, the Employer selected seven employees for Senior Corporation Tax Auditor positions.

The Union grieved the selection, alleging it was not made in good faith, specifically questioning the selection of one candidate over another who had superior objective qualifications.

The Grievance Settlement Board applied the two-part 'good faith' standard, finding no bad faith but concluding that the Employer's decision to bypass the superior candidate was not reasonable based on the stated criteria.

The Employer was directed to place the bypassed candidate in the position with back pay.

The Union moved to have the grievance granted on the basis that relevant evidence required to advance its case was destroyed by an agent of the Ministry.

The Ministry had hired a consultant to conduct a workplace review, and the consultant destroyed all interview notes and documents pursuant to its 'best practices' policy.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the destroyed documents were highly relevant and their destruction irreparably prejudiced the Union's ability to advance its case, the Employer's ability to defend its actions, and the Board's ability to determine the merits.

Concluding that a full and fair hearing could not take place, the Board granted the grievance and ordered the grievor reinstated to his home position.

The grievor was terminated for innocent absenteeism after being off work on long-term disability (LTD) since 1995 with no prospect of returning.

The union grieved the termination, arguing that the collective agreement and past practice provided employees on LTD with continued benefits, including life insurance and the accrual of vacation and attendance credits, which required 'employee' status.

The arbitrator held that while an employer generally has the right to terminate for innocent absenteeism, this right is fettered if termination deprives the employee of negotiated benefits specifically tied to their disability.

The grievance was allowed and the discharge rescinded.

The Union grieved the Employer's decision to rescind temporary Income Security Specialist appointments and cancel the competition based on allegations of cheating.

In this phase of the proceeding, the Grievance Settlement Board determined the legal standard applicable to the rescission of temporary appointments not governed by Article 6 of the collective agreement.

The Board held that it had jurisdiction to review the matter, as Article 8.6.2 did not oust its jurisdiction.

The Board further held that while the offers and acceptances created individual contracts of employment, management retained the right to appoint and rescind appointments under Article 2, subject to the requirement that it act in good faith and for rational business reasons.

The grievor requested vacation leave to avoid working with a co-worker with whom she had a personality conflict while her manager was away.

During her vacation, she discovered an acting manager had been appointed.

She subsequently requested that the last three days of her vacation be converted to paid leave under Article 49 of the collective agreement, citing a 'poisoned work environment'.

The Employer denied the request.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the grievor's discovery of a new manager did not constitute 'special or compassionate grounds' and that the Employer had exercised its discretion reasonably and in good faith.

The union challenged the employer's selection of seven grievors for promotion to Senior Corporations Tax Auditors, alleging non-compliance with a previous Board order.

The previous order required the employer to select the most qualified candidates in good faith and precluded grievances comparing qualifications.

The Vice-Chair reviewed the information and concluded that the employer's selection could have been made in good faith on an objective basis, as all candidates had strong credentials.

The grievance was dismissed.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss a grievance filed in October 1996 regarding alleged inhumane treatment and harassment that occurred prior to November 1988.

The grievor claimed the employer's actions caused his mental illness and inability to work, leading to his placement on Long Term Income Protection (LTIP) and CPP disability.

The Grievance Settlement Board found the grievance was not timely filed, as the circumstances giving rise to the complaint were known to the grievor by August 1991 at the latest.

The Board declined to exercise its discretion under section 48(16) of the Labour Relations Act to extend the time limits, noting the extreme delay of over five years, the lack of due diligence, and the substantial prejudice to the employer.

The grievance was dismissed.

The union grieved the employer's decision to cancel a job competition for temporary Income Support Specialist positions after verbal offers had been made and accepted by the successful candidates.

The employer cancelled the competition based on allegations of cheating and impropriety during the interview process.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that because the offers had already been made and accepted, the standard for cancelling a competition mid-stream did not apply.

While the employer had a duty to investigate the credible allegations, it could not cancel the competition and rescind the appointments based solely on allegations without proof of improper activity.

The union filed a group grievance alleging that the pro-rating of fully paid sick days under a compressed work week agreement violated a prior Grievance Settlement Board decision.

The grievors, who worked 12-hour shifts, argued that each fully paid sick day should be treated as one whole day regardless of length.

The Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the employer had fully complied with the specific language of the collective agreement and the local compressed work week agreement regarding short-term sickness pay.

The prior decision relied upon by the union dealt with threshold purposes for an attendance program, not the calculation of sick pay.

The Association moved to adjourn the grievance hearing sine die pending reconsideration of the grievor's pension issue by the Ontario Pension Board (OPB).

The grievance alleged improper calculation of the grievor's continuous service date and failure to recognize service for pension purposes.

The Employer opposed the adjournment, arguing the GSB had jurisdiction over the continuous service date issue regardless of the OPB's decision.

The Vice-Chair denied the motion to adjourn, finding that the OPB's determination would not resolve the primary issue of interpreting the collective agreement, and that proceeding with the delayed matter served a significant labour relations purpose.

The Union grieved the Ministry's decision to restrict a 'call for interest' for a back-up Trial Co-ordinator training opportunity to classified employees, excluding unclassified staff.

The Union argued this was a bad faith exercise of management rights intended to undermine unclassified employees' ability to compete for future vacancies.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the decision was made for legitimate financial and budgetary reasons.

Under the funding formula, backfilling with classified employees was revenue-neutral, whereas using unclassified employees resulted in a revenue loss.

The Board concluded the decision was reasonable and not a disguised means of achieving an impermissible end.

The union filed a grievance challenging the employer's universal application of a collective agreement provision requiring all employees at the Toronto Jail to provide a medical certificate for every sick leave absence.

The employer admitted at the hearing that this universal application violated the collective agreement, which required an individual suspicion of abuse, but argued the grievance was moot because the practice had ceased.

The arbitrator held the issue was not moot because compensation for affected employees had not been fully resolved, and issued a declaration that the universal application violated the collective agreement.

The grievor was discharged for allegedly stealing a gift flask from a case of liquor.

The union raised a preliminary objection, arguing that the employer violated Article 26.3 of the collective agreement by failing to inform the grievor in advance of the purpose of an investigatory meeting that could lead to discipline.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the right to advance notice under Article 26.3 is a substantive right, and the employer's failure to provide it prejudiced the grievor.

The Board declared the discharge void ab initio and ordered the grievor reinstated with compensation from the date the union raised the objection.

During a grievance hearing alleging constructive dismissal and anti-union animus, the union sought to introduce evidence concerning 17 prior grievances that had been fully and finally settled three years earlier.

The employer objected, arguing the settlement precluded re-litigating those matters.

The Grievance Settlement Board sustained the employer's objection, finding that the broad language of the settlement agreement precluded relying on the settled matters to support an existing grievance.

Furthermore, the Board held that the passage of over four years since the prior events significantly reduced their probative value, and balancing the equities favoured excluding the evidence to respect the finality of settlements.

The union filed a group grievance on behalf of unclassified court staff claiming entitlement to overtime pay for mandatory evening training sessions.

The union argued the employees had regularly scheduled work days and were entitled to overtime under Article 31.3.1(b) or (c) of the collective agreement.

The employer argued the employees did not have regularly scheduled work days because their finishing times varied, and thus Article 31.3.1(d) applied, requiring them to work over 36.25 hours in a week to receive overtime.

The Grievance Settlement Board agreed with the employer, finding the employees did not have specific scheduled hours or regularly scheduled work days, and dismissed the grievances.

The union alleged that the employer violated a settlement agreement by failing to consider the grievor's application for an open competition in good faith.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, arguing the settlement agreement only granted the grievor the right to apply to restricted competitions.

The Grievance Settlement Board agreed with the employer, finding that the clear language of the settlement agreement was limited to restricted competitions and did not apply to open competitions.

The grievance was dismissed.

The union sought to consolidate six additional grievances filed by the grievor with a November 2, 2000 group grievance alleging constructive dismissal, discrimination, and unfair discipline related to union activities.

The employer opposed consolidation, arguing the additional grievances were individual, untimely, or outside the board's jurisdiction.

The Grievance Settlement Board granted the consolidation for five of the six grievances, finding they shared a common question of fact regarding the employer's motive and alleged retaliation for union activities.

One grievance regarding incorrect pay was dismissed as moot because the issue had been resolved by a subsequent reclassification.

The union filed a grievance alleging that the grievor was temporarily assigned to perform the duties of a higher classification in violation of the collective agreement.

The employer raised a preliminary objection, arguing that the grievance was a disguised classification grievance over which the Grievance Settlement Board lacked jurisdiction.

The Vice-Chair agreed with the employer, finding that the grievor's ongoing concern was that his regular assignments constituted the work of a higher classification, rather than a temporary change in duties.

As the collective agreement and the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act reserve classification disputes for the Joint System Subcommittee, the preliminary motion was granted and the grievance was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The Employer raised a preliminary objection to the arbitrability of a grievance concerning shift premiums for overtime hours, arguing that the Union was barred from proceeding because a prior grievance on the same issue had been withdrawn at the complaint stage.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the objection, finding that the mere withdrawal of a grievance at an early stage, without explicit agreement to the Employer's interpretation of the collective agreement, does not constitute issue estoppel, res judicata, or abandonment.

The grievance was permitted to proceed.