Reva Devins

The Union filed grievances on behalf of several employees who applied for enhanced benefits under the Transition Exit Initiative (TEI) before retiring from the Ontario Public Service.

The Arbitrator applied established principles regarding the Employer's broad discretion to approve or deny TEI requests based on whether an employee's exit supports the transformation of the public service.

Finding no material facts to distinguish these grievances from previously dismissed cases, the Arbitrator concluded the Employer properly exercised its discretion and dismissed the grievances.

The Union filed grievances on behalf of several employees who applied for but were denied enhanced benefits under the Transition Exit Initiative (TEI) before retiring from the Ontario Public Service.

The arbitrator applied established principles regarding the Employer's broad discretion to approve or deny TEI requests based on whether the exit supports the transformation of the public service.

The arbitrator found that the Employer properly exercised its discretion in all cases, including those where the Union alleged junior employees were granted TEI, noting that in some instances the junior employees were in different positions or classifications.

The grievances were dismissed.

The Union brought a motion seeking directions on whether a December 2018 memo from the Secretary of Cabinet fundamentally changed the operation of the Transition Exit Initiative (TEI) under Appendix 46 of the Collective Agreement.

The Union argued the memo supported a more permissive approach to granting TEI applications, particularly for correctional officers.

The Arbitrator found that the memo merely expanded the program to previously excluded employees and did not alter the broad discretion of the Employer to approve applications based on its vision of transformation.

The motion was dismissed, and the parties were directed to proceed with the remaining grievances under the previously established principles.

The Grievor alleged she was improperly denied acting pay under Article 7.12(b) of the Collective Agreement after being assigned duties normally performed by a Product Consultant.

The Employer argued it was entitled to assign duties without designating her in an acting capacity and that Article 7.12(b) does not apply to retail stores.

The Union confirmed its continued acceptance that Article 7.12(b) does not apply in a retail setting.

Based on this shared understanding, the Arbitrator found no violation of the Collective Agreement and dismissed the grievance.

The grievor challenged a one-day suspension imposed for intimidating and disrespectful conduct towards a co-worker.

The union argued that a letter of reprimand would have been more appropriate given ongoing interpersonal issues and lack of management assistance.

The employer maintained the suspension was justified based on the grievor's history of prior discipline for similar conduct.

The arbitrator found the one-day suspension was reasonable in all the circumstances and dismissed the grievance.

The union filed a grievance alleging the employer improperly denied a request for bereavement leave.

The employer maintained the day in question was already a scheduled day off, as the grievor had previously requested the day off in person.

The arbitrator found the employer did not violate the collective agreement and dismissed the grievance.

The union grieved a three-day suspension imposed on the grievor for alleged misconduct violating the LCBO Respectful Workplace Policy.

The matter proceeded as a mediation/arbitration.

The parties were unable to resolve the grievance and requested a decision.

The arbitrator found that discipline was warranted, the three-day suspension was appropriate, and the investigation and procedures were adequate.

The grievance was dismissed.

The Union filed grievances on behalf of three employees regarding the operation of the Transition Exit Initiative (TEI) under the collective agreement.

Two grievors alleged the Employer improperly denied their requests to exit under the TEI, while the third alleged their approved enhanced benefits were not paid within a reasonable time.

Applying established principles regarding the Employer's broad discretion to approve TEI requests, the Arbitrator found the Employer properly exercised its discretion in denying the two requests and that the payments to the third grievor were made within a reasonable period.

The grievances were dismissed.

The Union filed grievances on behalf of 11 employees who were denied enhanced benefits under the Transition Exit Initiative (TEI).

The Union argued that the Employer improperly exercised its discretion and discriminated against three grievors on Long Term Income Protection (LTIP) by denying their applications as a class.

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

The Arbitrator also held that denying TEI to employees on LTIP did not violate the Ontario Human Rights Code, as they no longer held permanent positions that could be eliminated to prevent surplussing other employees, which is the core objective of the TEI program.

The union filed grievances on behalf of eight employees who were denied enhanced benefits under the Transition Exit Initiative (TEI) before retiring from the Ontario Public Service.

The arbitrator reviewed the principles established in earlier cases regarding the employer's discretion under Appendix 46 of the collective agreement.

The arbitrator concluded that the employer properly exercised its discretion when considering the grievors' requests to exit under the TEI.

The grievances were dismissed.

Ten grievors filed grievances alleging the Employer improperly exercised its discretion by denying their requests for enhanced benefits under the Transition Exit Initiative (TEI) before they retired from the Ontario Public Service.

The Arbitrator applied established principles from earlier cases, confirming the Employer has broad discretion to determine whether granting a TEI request supports transformation of the public service.

Finding no improper exercise of discretion, the grievances were dismissed.

The Union filed grievances on behalf of 29 employees who were denied enhanced benefits under the Transition Exit Initiative (TEI) before retiring from the Ontario Public Service.

The Arbitrator applied principles established in earlier cases, confirming that the Employer has broad discretion to determine whether granting a TEI request supports the transformation of the public service.

Finding no improper exercise of discretion, the Arbitrator dismissed the grievances.

The Union filed a series of grievances on behalf of several employees who were denied enhanced benefits under the Transition Exit Initiative (TEI) before retiring from the Ontario Public Service.

The Arbitrator applied established principles regarding the Employer's broad discretion to approve or deny TEI requests based on whether an employee's exit supports the transformation of the public service.

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

Three grievors applied for enhanced retirement benefits under the Transition Exit Initiative (TEI) prior to their retirement from the Ontario Public Service.

The Employer denied their applications, determining that their exits did not support the transformation of the OPS as their positions were still required.

The Union grieved, alleging an improper exercise of discretion.

The Arbitrator dismissed the grievances, finding that the Employer has broad discretion to determine whether an exit supports transformation, and the evidence did not establish that the Employer's decisions were unreasonable, arbitrary, or made in bad faith.

Four grievors filed grievances after the Employer denied their requests to receive enhanced benefits under the Transition Exit Initiative (TEI) pursuant to Appendix 46 of the Collective Agreement.

The Arbitrator applied established principles from prior decisions, confirming that the Employer retains broad discretion to determine whether an employee's exit supports the transformation of the Ontario Public Service.

Finding no improper exercise of discretion, the Arbitrator dismissed the grievances.

The Union filed grievances on behalf of two employees whose requests for the Transition Exit Initiative (TEI) were denied by the Employer before they retired.

The Union argued that the subsequent reclassification of one grievor's position and an error on the other grievor's Record of Employment demonstrated bad faith or an improper exercise of discretion.

The Arbitrator dismissed the grievances, finding that neither the subsequent reclassification of a position nor an erroneous statement in a Record of Employment established an improper exercise of the Employer's broad discretion to approve or deny TEI requests.

The grievor alleged that the employer improperly withheld more than the allowable amount from his pay under a garnishee order for family responsibility payments.

The employer provided records demonstrating that the amounts withheld did not exceed the maximum allowable deduction permitted by law, and the union presented no evidence to the contrary.

The arbitrator found that the employer correctly calculated the amounts to be withheld and dismissed the grievance.

The union filed grievances on behalf of two employees alleging that the employer improperly exercised its discretion regarding their applications for the Transition Exit Initiative (TEI).

One grievor alleged that the employer misrepresented the availability of salary continuance after age 65, depriving him of an earlier opportunity to apply, and discriminated against him based on age.

The other grievor alleged that her TEI request was not approved in a timely manner.

The arbitrator found that the employer's information regarding salary continuance was likely misunderstood rather than misrepresented, and noted that no similarly situated employees were approved before the first grievor retired.

The arbitrator also held that the employer was not obligated to respond to a TEI application within a specific timeframe.

The arbitrator concluded that the employer properly exercised its broad discretion under the collective agreement and dismissed the grievances.

The Union filed grievances on behalf of eight employees in the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry whose applications for the Transition Exit Initiative (TEI) were denied by the Employer before they retired.

The arbitrator applied principles established in earlier cases regarding the Employer's broad discretion under Appendix 46 of the Collective Agreement to determine whether granting a TEI request supports the transformation of the Ontario Public Service.

The arbitrator found that the Employer properly exercised its discretion in considering the grievors' requests and dismissed the grievances.

Six grievors in the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry filed grievances after their applications for the Transition Exit Initiative (TEI) were denied by the Employer prior to their retirement.

The arbitrator applied established principles regarding the Employer's broad discretion under Appendix 46 of the Collective Agreement to determine whether granting a TEI request supports the transformation of the Ontario Public Service.

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