Randi H. Abramsky

The union filed a group grievance challenging the employer's decision to delay and subsequently cancel a January 1999 job competition for Senior Corporation Tax Auditor positions.

The employer argued the cancellation was justified by a prior arbitration decision, the creation of a new Tax Auditor class series, a regional boundaries review, and restructuring of the electricity sector.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that while some of these factors justified delaying the competition and cancelling it for positions that were eliminated, they did not constitute sound and practical reasons to cancel the competition in its entirety for the remaining vacancies.

The grievance was allowed and the parties were directed to negotiate a remedy.

The grievor, a long-service employee, was discharged for filing false allegations of sexual assault and harassment against a co-worker in bad faith to secure a job upgrade.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the grievor's allegations were not credible and were inconsistent with the preponderance of probabilities.

The Board concluded that the grievor filed the complaint in bad faith, which constituted just cause for discipline.

However, considering the grievor's lengthy discipline-free record and management's failure to address the poisoned work environment, the Board substituted the discharge with a lengthy suspension without pay.

The grievor, a Learner Services Officer, was discharged for fraudulently soliciting charitable donations from private companies on behalf of the Ministry and the Children's Wish Foundation, and expropriating the donations for personal use.

The grievor used Ministry letterhead and his position to obtain complimentary passes to attractions.

The Grievance Settlement Board found just cause for discharge, as the grievor's actions were premeditated, repeated, and constituted a serious breach of trust.

Applying the Reville factors, the Board found no basis to substitute a lesser penalty, noting the ongoing pattern of misconduct and the grievor's lack of candour during the investigation.

The grievance was dismissed.

The Union filed individual and policy grievances alleging that students employed by the St. Lawrence Parks Commission at Fort Henry were improperly paid student wage rates instead of the higher classified or unclassified rates for the positions they occupied.

The Union argued that because the students performed the same duties as seasonal employees, they were not in 'student positions' under the collective agreement.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the main grievances, finding that the students were hired into 'student positions' and were properly paid the standardized student wage rates negotiated in Appendix 12.

The Board also held that individual students could not arbitrate their assigned wage rates.

However, the Board found that students working outside their 'regular vacation period' did not meet the definition of a student, and directed the parties to negotiate their status and rate of pay for those periods.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued a supplemental award determining the compensation owed to the grievor following an initial award.

The employer was ordered to pay various amounts including 23 months' salary, lost overtime, termination and severance pay under the Employment Standards Act, and an amount in lieu of benefits, less a 30-day suspension deduction.

The total compensation was subject to statutory deductions and an income tax gross-up.

The grievors, Assessment Field Officers, alleged they were improperly denied acting pay while performing the duties of Neighborhood Functional Assessors during a period of major property reassessment.

The union argued the grievors performed the same work as the higher-rated assessors.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievances, finding that while there was significant overlap in duties, the grievors did not perform all the core duties of the higher position, such as independent commercial/industrial valuations and defending assessments before the Assessment Review Board.

The grievor, a tax auditor, claimed travel expenses from the audit location to his residence at the end of the work day, rather than to the office.

The employer required the grievor to travel back to the office during regular working hours, which the union argued violated the collective agreement by treating travel time as work time.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that the employer has the right to require employees to travel during regular working hours as a cost-saving measure, even if it results in less actual audit time.

The grievance was dismissed.

The grievor was discharged for allegedly soliciting private companies for charitable donations on behalf of the Ministry and a charity, and keeping the donations.

At arbitration, the employer sought to introduce evidence of additional similar solicitations discovered after the discharge.

The union objected, arguing the employer was limited to the grounds relied upon at the time of discharge and had failed to provide full disclosure as required by the collective agreement.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that the evidence was admissible, as it related to the original reasons for discharge and was not known to the employer at the time.

While the employer delayed in disclosing the final investigation report, the appropriate remedy was an adjournment rather than exclusion of the evidence.

The parties reached a consent agreement to resolve multiple grievances concerning reporting pay, set-up and close-down time, and down time for unclassified court support staff.

The union agreed to withdraw the grievances, and the employer agreed to implement a new policy effective May 1, 2000.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued the terms as a consent order and remained seized of the matter for implementation purposes.

The grievor, a temporary Data Entry Clerk, alleged that the Employer acted in bad faith by denying her a Data Processing Clerk position in a job competition.

The Union argued that the keying test was designed to favour another candidate by using a strictly numeric test on a specific keyboard system.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the Employer's decisions regarding the test design were reasonable and based on legitimate business needs, as the department was phasing out older systems and the majority of the work was numeric.

The Board concluded there was insufficient evidence of bad faith or favouritism, noting the grievor performed well in the interview portion but fell short in the overall scoring.

The grievance was dismissed.

The union filed a grievance alleging violations of Articles 6 and 31.15.1.1 of the collective agreement regarding the grievor's conversion to full-time status and the employer's failure to post a position.

The union conceded that the grievor did not meet the criteria for conversion under Article 31.15.1.1, as he lacked two years of full-time service and the facility was scheduled to close.

The grievance regarding the failure to post under Article 6 was dismissed as untimely, having been filed in October 1997 for an alleged failure in 1996.

The grievance was dismissed.

The grievor alleged that he was improperly surplussed.

The parties to the collective agreement did not dispute the Employer's action.

The grievance was dismissed.

The grievor, a warehouseman with 20 years of seniority, grieved a three-day suspension, a ten-day suspension, and his discharge.

The arbitrator upheld the three-day suspension for unsafe forklift operation, finding the employer's witnesses more credible than the grievor.

The ten-day suspension for threatening a co-worker and a second unsafe driving incident was voided due to the employer's unreasonable delay in imposing discipline, which prejudiced the grievor.

Regarding the discharge, the arbitrator found that the grievor's statement 'I want to kill 'em' at a Ministry of Labour meeting warranted discipline but not discharge, substituting a 30-day suspension.

However, the arbitrator exercised the exceptional remedy of denying reinstatement, finding the employment relationship irreparably destroyed due to the grievor's complete refusal to accept responsibility, lack of remorse, and animosity toward co-workers and management.

The grievor was awarded compensation in lieu of reinstatement equivalent to one month's wages per year of seniority plus 15% for fringe benefits.

The grievor, an unclassified employee on a one-year contract, was terminated for performance deficiencies with two weeks' pay in lieu of notice.

The union grieved the termination, alleging discharge without just cause.

The employer raised a preliminary objection, arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction because it had exercised its right under the collective agreement to terminate an unclassified employee with notice.

The Board dismissed the preliminary objection, finding that a termination for performance reasons constitutes a discharge, which is subject to the just cause protection in the collective agreement, rather than a mere termination with notice.