Reva Devins

Following a May 2025 award allowing a grievance and ordering the Employer to pay TEI benefits to the grievor, an ongoing dispute arose regarding the payment of those benefits.

Given the considerable delay, the Arbitrator directed the Employer to provide a complete breakdown of its calculation of the payment obligations and an accounting of what has and has not been paid by March 31, 2026.

The Arbitrator remained seized of the matter.

The Grievor, a correctional officer, alleged that a co-worker made an offensive comment suggesting she was bringing contraband into the facility.

She filed an internal complaint and a WDHP complaint, both of which were investigated but not substantiated as harassment.

The Union grieved the Employer's response.

At the close of the Union's case, the Employer brought a non-suit motion.

The Arbitrator granted the motion, finding no prima facie case that the Employer failed to respond appropriately or that the single comment constituted racial harassment, especially since the Grievor did not raise race as a factor until after the WDHP process concluded.

The union grieved a one-day suspension imposed on the grievor in 2019 for allegedly making offensive and inappropriate comments about a co-worker.

At the mediation/arbitration hearing, the employer agreed to reimburse the grievor for one day of lost wages, noting that the discipline could no longer be used in subsequent proceedings due to the passage of time.

The arbitrator found that no further remedy was required and dismissed the grievance without determining whether the suspension was reasonable.

The union filed a grievance alleging that the employer violated the collective agreement and related legislation when a manager contacted the grievor at home regarding work-related issues.

The employer responded that employees are only contacted off work for operational issues requiring immediate attention and are not compelled to answer.

Proceeding as a mediation/arbitration, the arbitrator found no evidence of harassment or a violation of the collective agreement or legislation.

The grievance was dismissed.

The grievor, acting as a Union Representative, alleged that the Employer violated the collective agreement by scheduling multiple investigation meetings on the same day with inadequate notice, making it impossible for him to attend all of them.

The Employer argued that the collective agreement does not guarantee a specific amount of notice or which specific Union Representative will attend, and noted that no individual employee was prejudiced.

The Arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding no violation of the collective agreement.

The grievor filed a grievance challenging the discipline imposed on another employee.

The matter proceeded as a mediation/arbitration.

The arbitrator found that the grievor was not directly affected by the discipline and had no standing to pursue the grievance.

The affected employee had filed their own grievance, and any policy concerns were for the union to pursue.

The grievance was dismissed.

The grievor, a Union representative, alleged that the Employer violated the collective agreement by scheduling disciplinary meetings for four employees on short notice and refusing to provide their contact information.

The Employer maintained that it respected the right to Union representation, notified the Union of all meetings, and that the collective agreement did not guarantee a specific notice period or the attendance of a specific representative.

The Arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding no violation of the collective agreement and concluding that the Employer's conduct did not amount to harassment or discrimination.

The union grieved that the employer violated the collective agreement by scheduling investigation or grievance meetings on the grievor's scheduled day off.

The employer argued that the relevant provisions only ensure employees do not lose money if required to attend meetings, and that the grievor had not lost pay or time.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that the collective agreement does not prohibit the employer from scheduling a meeting on a specific union representative's regular day off.

The union grieved the employer's decision to deny the grievor's request to exit the Ontario Public Service under the Transition Exit Initiative (TEI).

The employer determined that the grievor's exit would not assist with the transformation of the public service and that there were no plans to reduce Verification Officer positions.

Applying established principles regarding the employer's broad discretion under Appendix 46 of the Collective Agreement, the arbitrator found no improper exercise of discretion and dismissed the grievance.

The grievor requested a 12-month leave of absence to pursue employment with a police service, which the employer granted.

Shortly after, the grievor applied to exit the Ontario Public Service under the Transition Exit Initiative (TEI).

The employer denied the request, determining the grievor was no longer eligible due to the approved leave, and instead granted TEI to a more junior employee.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the employer violated Appendix 46 of the collective agreement, which requires TEI determinations among eligible employees to be based on seniority.

The grievance was allowed, and the grievor was awarded the full TEI benefit.

The Union grieved the Employer's denial of the Grievor's request for the Transition Exit Initiative (TEI) under Appendix 46 of the Collective Agreement.

The Union argued that the decision-makers relied on irrelevant facts, pointing to an error made by a Director during a meeting.

The Arbitrator found that the Director's error was an innocent mistake and that the Grievor's actual position was properly considered.

The Arbitrator also found that the Grievor's position was not eliminated but converted and filled after his retirement.

Applying established principles regarding the Employer's broad discretion under Appendix 46, the Arbitrator concluded the discretion was properly exercised and dismissed the grievance.

The grievor, a Program Administrator, submitted a request for the Transition Exit Initiative (TEI) which was denied by the Employer.

The Union grieved the denial, arguing it was unfair and discriminatory as others had been approved.

The Employer maintained the grievor's position was required and no TEI applications had been granted since 2020.

The Arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that the Employer properly exercised its broad discretion under Appendix 46 of the Collective Agreement to determine whether an employee's exit supports the transformation of the public service.

The grievor, a Senior Auditor, applied for the Transition Exit Initiative (TEI) prior to his retirement.

The Employer denied the application, and the grievor challenged the fairness of the decision-making process.

The arbitrator found that the Employer properly exercised its broad discretion under Appendix 46 of the Collective Agreement, noting that TEI is not a general retirement allowance and the Employer had no plans to reduce positions in the grievor's office at the time.

The grievance was dismissed.

The Union grieved the Employer's denial of the Grievor's application for the Transition Exit Initiative (TEI) under Appendix 46 of the Collective Agreement.

The Grievor, a Parole and Probation Admin Support staff member, argued her exit would have supported transformation.

The Employer maintained there were no plans to reduce positions in her office and her position was filled upon departure.

The Arbitrator found that the Employer properly exercised its broad discretion in denying the request, consistent with previous jurisprudence establishing that TEI is not a general retirement allowance.

The grievance was dismissed.

The Grievor, a former Union steward on long-term disability, grieved the Employer's denial of his request for the Transition Exit Initiative (TEI) prior to his retirement.

The Union argued the denial was unfair and motivated by his union activity.

The Arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding no evidence of bad faith or discrimination.

Applying previous jurisprudence, the Arbitrator held that the Employer properly exercised its broad discretion under Appendix 46 of the Collective Agreement, as the Grievor no longer occupied a home position from which he could exit to support the transformation of the public service.

The Grievor, a Corridor Management Planner with 31 years of service, applied for enhanced benefits under the Transition Exit Initiative (TEI) prior to her retirement.

The Employer denied the request, maintaining that her position was still required and that granting TEI would not support the transformation of the Ontario Public Service.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the Employer properly exercised its broad discretion under Appendix 46 of the Collective Agreement and that the case was indistinguishable from previous decisions upholding the Employer's discretion to deny TEI requests.

The Grievor, a Probation and Parole Officer with 33 years of service, applied for enhanced benefits under the Transition Exit Initiative (TEI) prior to his retirement.

His application was not approved, and he filed a grievance challenging the fairness of the Employer's decision-making process.

The Arbitrator found that the Employer properly exercised its broad discretion under Appendix 46 of the Collective Agreement, noting that TEI is not a general retirement allowance and the Employer is not required to approve all requests.

The grievance was dismissed.

The Union grieved the Employer's decision to deny the grievor's application for the Transition Exit Initiative (TEI) prior to his retirement.

The grievor argued the Employer's decision-making process was unfair and relied on assurances that best efforts would be made to approve requests supporting organizational transformation.

The Arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that the Employer properly exercised its broad discretion under Appendix 46 of the Collective Agreement.

The Arbitrator noted that a TEI application does not survive an employee's departure from the public service and that the approval of another employee's request after the grievor's retirement did not establish improper conduct.

The Union filed multiple grievances on behalf of employees who applied for but were not approved to receive enhanced benefits under the Transition Exit Initiative (TEI) pursuant to Appendix 46 of the Collective Agreement.

The arbitrator applied principles established in earlier cases, confirming that the Employer retains broad discretion to determine whether granting a TEI request supports the transformation of the Ontario Public Service.

Finding no improper exercise of discretion, the arbitrator dismissed all the grievances.

The Union filed grievances on behalf of several employees who were denied enhanced benefits under the Transition Exit Initiative (TEI).

The Arbitrator applied principles established in earlier decisions, confirming that the Employer has broad discretion to approve or deny TEI requests based on whether the exit supports the transformation of the Ontario Public Service.

Finding no improper exercise of discretion, bad faith, or discrimination, the Arbitrator dismissed the grievances.