Reva Devins

The Union filed grievances on behalf of several employees whose requests for a voluntary exit package under the Transition Exit Initiative (TEI) 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 that the Employer properly exercised its broad discretion under the collective agreement to determine that the employees' exits would not support its vision of transformation, consistent with previous decisions on the same issue.

The Employer terminated the Grievor's employment for abandonment.

At the scheduled arbitration hearing, the Grievor failed to appear.

The Union requested an adjournment sine die, while the Employer sought dismissal of the grievance.

The Arbitrator declined to grant an indefinite adjournment or dismiss the grievance immediately, instead granting an adjournment on terms requiring the Grievor to provide medical documentation explaining his absence and the Union to provide particulars of its challenge by a specified date.

The Union requested an adjournment sine die of the grievance hearing because the grievor was on a leave of absence.

The arbitrator granted the adjournment request.

To minimize prejudice to the employer, the arbitrator ordered the Union to provide full particulars of the grievance within 90 days.

The parties were directed to contact the Board to schedule a hearing date after the grievor's return from leave.

Following a prior arbitration award ordering the employer to pay damages to eligible grievors, the parties disputed which individuals met the conditions for eligibility.

The arbitrator issued an oral ruling determining eligibility for all disputed individuals, preserving their confidentiality by not naming them in a written decision.

The union filed grievances on behalf of several correctional officers whose applications for the Transition Exit Initiative (TEI) were denied by the employer.

The union argued that the employer's exclusive focus on staffing shortages and the lack of intention to reduce correctional officer positions amounted to a blanket rule, thereby fettering its discretion.

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

The consistent denial of TEI requests from correctional officers was not due to an improper blanket rule, but rather reflected the shared operational and fiscal realities of their chronically understaffed positions, which meant their exit would not support the employer's vision of transformation.

The Grievor, a Correctional Officer, was discharged after failing to scan a dayroom and inspect a shower stall, resulting in his failure to observe an ongoing inmate fight and an injured inmate.

The Union grieved the discharge, arguing it was excessive and amounted to differential treatment compared to other officers who missed similar incidents.

The Arbitrator found the Grievor's misconduct was serious, as he neglected his core duties, and that his previous disciplinary record for similar conduct undermined his rehabilitative potential.

The Arbitrator also rejected the differential treatment argument, finding the comparator incidents were not substantially similar.

The grievance was dismissed and the discharge upheld.

In a grievance arbitration, the Employer sought an order requiring the Union to provide full and sufficient particulars.

The Arbitrator granted the request, ordering the Union to provide detailed particulars for all individuals wishing to pursue their grievance by February 29, 2020.

The Complainant, an Operational Manager at a correctional facility, was dismissed for cause following allegations of workplace harassment against a female colleague and the unauthorized expiry of a non-association alert between two high-risk inmates.

The Public Service Grievance Board found that the Complainant engaged in a pattern of harassing conduct that poisoned his colleague's work environment.

Furthermore, the Board concluded that his expiry of the non-association alert was reckless, unauthorized, and placed staff and inmates at risk.

Given the Complainant's lack of remorse and failure to take responsibility, the Board upheld the dismissal and dismissed the grievance.

The grievor applied for the Transition Exit Initiative (TEI) but retired before her application was approved.

The Union grieved the denial, alleging the Employer improperly considered her eligibility for an unreduced pension, amounting to age discrimination.

The Arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding no evidence that the Senior Management Team considered her retirement status.

The denial was based on the lack of ongoing transformation in her department and the need to maintain staffing levels.

The Arbitrator accepted the Employer's evidence that a manager's comment regarding her retirement eligibility was made sympathetically, not as the reason for the denial.

The complainant was placed on an administrative suspension with pay pending an investigation into allegations of time theft.

The suspension letter advised he would not be eligible for overtime.

He filed a complaint regarding the loss of overtime pay.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the complaint on the basis that it was not filed within the mandatory 14-day timeline under O. Reg. 378/07.

The Board found that the complainant became aware of the circumstances giving rise to his complaint when he was initially suspended and told he was ineligible for overtime, not when the employer later confirmed he would not receive overtime pay.

As the notice was filed beyond the 14-day period, the Board lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the complaint.

The Union alleged that the Employer breached the Minutes of Settlement by failing to pay the grievor within the agreed-upon 60-day timeframe and failing to make best efforts to pay as soon as possible.

The Employer argued that the delay was due to an honest mistake and a postal strike, and that the breach was minor.

The Arbitrator found that the Employer failed to make best efforts to expedite payment and missed the absolute 60-day deadline, which caused significant distress to the unemployed grievor.

The Arbitrator declared that the Employer breached the settlement and ordered the Employer to pay $750 in damages to the grievor.

The union grieved the repayment of an overpayment issued to the grievor in error.

The parties disputed the amount owed and whether a previous binding settlement resolved the question.

Proceeding by expedited arbitration, the arbitrator declared that the entire amount owed by the grievor to the employer for the overpayment was $4,779.02.

The grievor filed a grievance alleging that the employer violated the collective agreement by failing to give primary consideration to her qualifications and placing undue reliance on a test score during a job competition.

The union subsequently provided particulars alleging harassment and bad faith.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to strike these particulars as an improper expansion of the grievance.

The arbitrator granted the motion, finding that the grievance was completely silent on allegations of harassment or bad faith, and that permitting the union to proceed with these allegations would be an improper expansion of the grievance.

The union grieved the employer's decision to deny the grievor's request for a Transition Exit Initiative (TEI) prior to her retirement.

The union argued that the grievor's position had undergone a wholesale transformation and was effectively eliminated, making the denial an improper exercise of discretion.

The arbitrator found that while the grievor's duties had evolved significantly due to technological changes and reorganization, her position was not eliminated and her work was still required by the employer.

The arbitrator concluded that the employer reasonably exercised its discretion in denying the TEI request, as the initiative was intended to facilitate workforce reduction and avoid layoffs, not to serve as a general retirement allowance.

The parties sought clarification on a prior arbitration award that ordered the Employer to pay damages to grievors meeting certain conditions.

The Union sought to extend the damages to individuals who did not participate in the group grievance but otherwise met the conditions.

The Arbitrator held that the Board was functus officio and had no authority to extend the remedy beyond the scope of the final decision, which limited damages to the actual grievors.

The grievor, a long-service Database Administrator, applied for a Transition Exit Initiative (TEI) under Appendix 46 of the collective agreement prior to retiring.

The Employer denied the application on the basis that there was an ongoing need for the grievor's position, despite the grievor's core duties diminishing due to technological changes.

The Union grieved the denial, arguing that the grievor's departure supported the transformation of the OPS.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the Employer reasonably exercised its broad discretion under Appendix 46 by limiting TEI approvals to circumstances where the departure would free up a position to be eliminated, consistent with the objective of workforce reduction.

In a grievance arbitration, the arbitrator ordered the grievor to obtain her complete medical file from the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH) and produce it to union counsel.

Union counsel was directed to produce the arguably relevant portions to employer counsel.

The disclosure was made subject to strict confidentiality conditions, limiting dissemination to key advisors on a need-to-know basis, prohibiting advisors from making copies, and requiring the destruction of all but one copy of the documents at the conclusion of the proceedings.

The parties proceeded by expedited mediation/arbitration.

The Employer submitted that the parties had agreed to a negotiated settlement, while the Union presented the Grievor's concerns and sought a greater amount in damages.

The Arbitrator determined that the Union and the Employer had reached a binding settlement, which was accurately reflected in the written Minutes of Settlement prepared by the Employer.

The Arbitrator ruled that the Minutes of Settlement were in effect and determinative of all outstanding issues.

In a grievance arbitration concerning the discharge of a correctional officer for failing to identify an inmate fight and injured inmate, the Union brought a preliminary motion for the production of documents relating to three other incidents where staff allegedly missed inmate fights but were not disciplined.

The Employer argued the request lacked specificity and was a fishing expedition.

The Arbitrator granted the motion, finding the documents arguably relevant to the Union's claim of differential discipline, and ordered production with procedural safeguards to mitigate any prejudice to the Employer.

The parties proceeded by expedited mediation/arbitration regarding a grievance.

The employer conceded a violation of the collective agreement, leaving only the issue of remedy.

The arbitrator ordered the employer to pay $350 in damages to each grievor who had an asterisk beside their name and was being medically accommodated.