Reva Devins

Three grievors applied for the Transition Exit Initiative (TEI) before retiring from the Ontario Public Service, but their requests were denied by the Employer.

The Union grieved the denials, arguing the Employer improperly exercised its discretion under Appendix 46 of the Collective Agreement.

The Arbitrator applied established principles from prior TEI decisions, confirming the Employer retains broad discretion to determine whether an employee's exit supports the transformation of the public service.

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

The union grieved the handling of the grievor's application for enhanced benefits under the Transition Exit Initiative, alleging the grievor was bullied into accepting an exit date that was not mutually agreeable.

As a preliminary matter, the arbitrator was asked to determine whether the grievor and his manager had reached a pre-arranged, mutually agreeable exit date.

The arbitrator found that the manager had not agreed to the grievor's preferred exit date and that the grievor's belief to the contrary was mistaken.

The arbitrator concluded there was no pre-arranged agreement regarding the exit date and remitted the matter back to the parties.

The Union filed a policy grievance regarding the interpretation of the supplementary health benefits provision in the collective agreement, specifically whether it covers the charges of a psychologist who supervises a psychotherapist providing direct treatment to an employee.

The Employer argued that only direct, face-to-face services provided by a psychologist or social worker were covered.

The Arbitrator allowed the grievance, finding no ambiguity in the collective agreement's broad reference to 'charges for the services of a psychologist'.

The Arbitrator held that supervision is a recognized service within a psychologist's scope of practice that provides direct benefit to the client, and therefore falls within the covered services under the collective agreement.

Forty-seven grievors filed grievances after the Employer denied their applications for the Transition Exit Initiative (TEI) before they retired from the Ontario Public Service.

The Union argued that the Employer improperly exercised its discretion and that changes to the retiree benefit plan were a deliberate effort to induce mass retirements and circumvent the TEI process.

The Arbitrator dismissed the grievances, finding no factual foundation to support the argument that the Employer acted in bad faith, unreasonably, arbitrarily, or in a discriminatory manner, and concluded that the Employer properly exercised its discretion in denying the TEI requests.

The Union filed grievances on behalf of several employees regarding their requests for the Transition Exit Initiative (TEI) under Appendix 46 of the Collective Agreement.

The parties confirmed that all grievors had already been granted and received TEI before exiting the Ontario Public Service.

In light of earlier awards regarding the operation of Appendix 46, the arbitrator dismissed the grievances.

Twenty-five grievors filed grievances after their applications for the Transition Exit Initiative (TEI) were denied by the Employer prior to their retirement from the Ontario Public Service.

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

Finding that the Employer properly exercised its discretion in considering the grievors' requests, the Arbitrator dismissed the grievances.

The Union alleged that the Employer breached Minutes of Settlement dated January 13, 2021.

The Arbitrator issued an order directing the grievor to repay $8,341 for 2019 vacation credits by July 1, 2021, to avoid its inclusion on his 2021 T4.

The Employer was ordered to pay the grievor for his accumulated vacation credits for 2019, 2020, and 2021 between January 1 and March 31, 2022.

The complainants challenged the Employer's refusal to grant their requests for enhanced severance benefits under the Voluntary Exit Program (VEP).

The Employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the complaints, arguing the Public Service Grievance Board lacked jurisdiction because the VEP did not form a term or condition of employment until an application was approved.

Relying on a previous decision involving the same program, the Board agreed that the complaints did not allege a violation of an existing term or condition of employment.

The preliminary motion was allowed and the complaints were dismissed.

Eight grievors in various positions in the Ministry of the Attorney General filed grievances after their applications for the Transition Exit Initiative (TEI) were denied prior to their retirement.

The parties submitted an Agreed Statement of Facts.

The arbitrator applied principles established in earlier cases, confirming the Employer has 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.

Five Youth Services Officers grieved the timing of their approved Transition Exit Initiative (TEI) applications, alleging they delayed applying due to misinformation or lack of clarity from the Employer regarding exit dates and bridging to unreduced pensions.

The Union argued this constituted arbitrary, bad faith, and discriminatory decision-making.

The Arbitrator dismissed the grievances, finding no deliberate attempt to mislead the grievors and noting that the inherent uncertainty of the TEI program's exit date negotiation meant the grievors' decisions to delay applying until they were eligible for full pensions would likely have remained the same even with better information.

Nineteen grievors employed by the Ministry of the Attorney General filed grievances alleging that the Employer improperly denied their applications for the Transition Exit Initiative (TEI) under Appendix 46 of the Collective Agreement.

The Employer maintained that the grievors' positions continued to be required and their exits would not support the transformation of the Ontario Public Service.

Applying principles established in prior awards, the Arbitrator found that the Employer retained broad discretion to approve or deny TEI requests and had properly exercised its discretion based on relevant considerations.

The grievances were dismissed.

Three Probation Officers filed grievances after the Employer denied their applications for the Transition Exit Initiative (TEI) prior to their retirements.

The Union argued the Employer's decision was arbitrary, discriminatory, and in bad faith, given the diminishing caseloads and the approval of other TEI requests before and after the grievors' applications.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievances, finding that the Employer retained broad discretion to determine when and whether to downsize the workforce, and that its cautious approach to staffing reductions was rational and not made in bad faith.

The union appealed the denial of long-term disability benefits to a claimant who suffered from chronic fatigue syndrome and chronic pain.

The insurer had terminated benefits at the change of definition date, determining the claimant was not totally disabled from performing the essential duties of any occupation.

The arbitrator reviewed the medical evidence, including several independent medical examinations, and found insufficient objective evidence of totally disabling cognitive or physical impairments.

The appeal was dismissed as the claimant failed to meet the onus of establishing total disability from any occupation.

The union grieved a one-day suspension imposed on the grievor for alleged misconduct in the execution of their duties.

The matter proceeded as a mediation/arbitration pursuant to the collective agreement.

The arbitrator determined that the imposition of discipline was not warranted in the circumstances.

The grievance was allowed and the letter of suspension was ordered rescinded, with no further compensation awarded.

The grievor failed to attend the scheduled videoconference arbitration hearing, and the union was unaware of the reason for his absence.

The arbitrator granted the union 21 days to contact the grievor, provide sufficient reasons for his non-attendance, and seek assurances of his future participation.

If the grievor fails to do so, the parties will provide written submissions on how to proceed, including whether the grievance should be dismissed.

The Union filed grievances on behalf of several employees whose applications for the Transition Exit Initiative (TEI) were denied by the Employer.

The Union argued that the Employer fettered its discretion by only considering whether the employees' positions were still required.

The Arbitrator dismissed the grievances, finding no meaningful distinction from previous decisions which held that the Employer has broad discretion under Appendix 46 to determine whether an employee's exit supports the transformation of the Ontario Public Service.

The union filed grievances on behalf of four employees whose requests for enhanced severance benefits under the Transition Exit Initiative were denied by the employer.

The union argued that the employer fettered its discretion by only considering whether the positions were still required.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievances, finding no basis to distinguish them from previous decisions which established that the employer has broad discretion under the collective agreement to determine whether an employee's exit supports the transformation of the public service.

The complainant challenged the employer's refusal to grant his request to exit the Ontario Public Service with enhanced severance benefits under the Voluntary Exit Program (VEP).

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction, arguing the VEP was not an existing term or condition of employment.

The Public Service Grievance Board agreed, finding that the VEP announcement was a pre-contractual representation and did not become a binding term of employment until an application was approved.

The Board concluded it lacked jurisdiction to review the fairness of the decision-making process or to create new terms of employment, and dismissed the complaint.

The union filed grievances on behalf of four employees whose requests for enhanced severance benefits under the Transition Exit Initiative (TEI) were denied by the employer prior to their retirements.

The union argued the employer fettered its discretion by only considering whether the positions were still required, rather than a broader view of workforce transformation.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievances, finding the cases indistinguishable from previous decisions which held that the employer has broad discretion to determine whether an employee's exit supports transformation and is entitled to focus on downsizing.

The Union filed grievances on behalf of five employees whose requests for enhanced severance benefits under the Transition Exit Initiative (TEI) were denied by the Employer.

The Employer maintained that the employees' positions were still required and their exit would not support the transformation of the Ontario Public Service.

The Arbitrator found that the Employer properly exercised its broad discretion under Appendix 46 of the Collective Agreement, consistent with previous decisions, and dismissed the grievances.