Richard Brown

The union grieved the employer's refusal to pay holiday pay for Good Friday and Easter Monday to essential and emergency workers during a 2002 strike.

In a previous decision, the arbitrator ruled that entitlement depended on whether there was a 'reasonable nexus' between the work performed and the benefit claimed.

After receiving written submissions, the arbitrator concluded that a sufficient nexus existed.

Emergency workers were covered by the collective agreement if the holiday fell between the assignment and completion of work, and essential workers had scheduled hours throughout the strike.

The arbitrator ordered that any employee covered by the collective agreement on the holidays in question is entitled to holiday pay.

The grievors, designated to provide emergency services during the 2002 Ontario public service work stoppage, claimed standby pay for time not actually worked during the strike.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievances, relying on a previous decision (OPSEU and Management Board Secretariat, GSB No. 2002-2427) which addressed the identical issue.

The grievors were seasonal employees in the Ministry's fire program whose recall was delayed by the 2002 OPSEU strike.

Following the strike, the parties signed employment contracts with a start date of May 6, 2002, which the Ministry later unilaterally amended to reflect earlier actual recall dates.

The parties agreed the Ministry should not have unilaterally changed the contract start dates after signing.

As no economic loss was suffered, no damages were awarded.

The grievor alleged she should have been assigned overtime work as a fire operations clerk during the 2002 work stoppage.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance because the evidence indicated no such overtime work was performed by anyone at the location on the dates in question.

The grievor claimed call-back pay after receiving a phone call from his supervisor on the evening a work stoppage ended, instructing him where to pick up his Ministry vehicle the next morning.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding no entitlement to call-back pay in the circumstances.

The union applied for further disclosure from the employer relating to persons working in information technology or the Shared Services Bureau.

The Grievance Settlement Board directed the employer to provide its position on whether each claimed person is performing union-type work, the facts relied upon to justify its position, and the status of persons whose contracts have expired.

The union filed a policy grievance claiming stand-by or on-call pay for employees designated to provide essential or emergency services during the 2002 Ontario Public Service strike.

The union argued that the designation letters and various Ontario Labour Relations Board decisions required these employees to maintain a state of readiness that satisfied the collective agreement criteria for stand-by or on-call pay.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that neither the designation letters nor the OLRB decisions required employees to maintain the specific level of availability corresponding to stand-by or on-call duty.

The grievance was dismissed.

The union sought an interim order for disclosure relating to the rest of the Ontario Public Service regarding people performing bargaining-unit work who are not formally designated as employees.

The employer opposed the broad scope and proposed limiting disclosure to the Ministry of Health.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that disclosure at this stage should be limited to the Ministry of Health, as the union had not demonstrated reasonable grounds to suspect substantial non-compliance in other ministries not mentioned in the provincial auditor's report.

The Board directed the employer to provide the requested disclosure for the Ministry of Health.

The union filed a policy grievance claiming essential and emergency workers were entitled to holiday pay for Good Friday and Easter Monday, which fell during a 2002 strike.

The arbitrator clarified an earlier interim award, ruling that emergency workers were covered by the collective agreement only in the interval between being scheduled to work and completing all assigned shifts.

For employees who were covered but worked reduced hours, the arbitrator reviewed arbitral jurisprudence on holiday pay during temporary absences and deferred a final ruling pending further submissions on whether a 'reasonable nexus' existed between the holiday pay claimed and the performance of work.

The union filed a policy grievance claiming call-back pay for essential and emergency employees who worked unscheduled shifts during an eight-week strike.

The employer argued that call-back pay only applied to employees who had already worked a shift and were called in prior to their next scheduled shift.

The Grievance Settlement Board rejected both parties' extreme positions, finding that the purpose of call-back pay is to compensate for the inconvenience of working on short notice.

The Board held that call-back pay is owed for an unscheduled shift if it was worked with notice less than the maximum the employee could have received for a call back before the strike.

The grievor, a senior licensing clerk, suffered a workplace injury resulting in permanent medical restrictions and reduced working hours.

The employer converted her status from regular full-time to regular part-time, reducing her vacation, statutory holiday, pension, and health benefits.

The union grieved the conversion, arguing it violated a prior grievance settlement, the collective agreement, and the Human Rights Code.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that the prior settlement did not guarantee full-time status.

However, under article 41.4 of the collective agreement, the grievor's receipt of a WSIB Future Economic Loss award entitled her to continued health and welfare benefits.

The Board dismissed the human rights claim regarding the reduction of other compensation-based benefits, finding that requiring work in exchange for compensation is a bona fide requirement and not discriminatory.

The union sought disclosure of information regarding non-employees engaged by the employer.

Following previous disclosure orders, the parties agreed to a consent order.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued the consent order, which detailed the specific information to be disclosed, timelines for disclosure, and exclusions for certain categories of workers, such as those involved in labour relations or working in a minister's office.

The union filed grievances claiming that employees with between one and five years of service whose work was transferred to a new employer under Schedule A or Schedule C of Appendix 18 were entitled to severance pay.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that employees who elect not to be included in a Request for Proposals (RFP) are declared surplus and are entitled to severance pay.

However, employees who elect to be included in an RFP and either accept a job offer or decline one (with specific exceptions under Schedule C) are deemed to have resigned and are not entitled to severance pay.

The association filed a policy grievance alleging the employer violated the collective agreement by using non-bargaining unit members (such as consultants and agency employees) to perform bargaining unit work.

The association requested production of documents detailing these arrangements.

The employer objected, characterizing the request as a fishing expedition.

Relying on a provincial auditor's report that found heavy reliance on consultants in six ministries, the Grievance Settlement Board found reasonable grounds to suspect a violation and ordered initial disclosure of information for one of the six ministries to balance the need for relevant information with expedition and cost.

The union filed a grievance claiming call-back pay for an essential services worker who was called into work on an unscheduled day during a strike.

The employer had paid the basic hourly rate for the hours worked.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that under the essential services agreement, the collective agreement applied without interruption during the strike.

Therefore, the grievor was entitled to call-back pay at time and a half for a minimum of four hours, as specified in the collective agreement.

The union filed a policy grievance challenging the Ministry's decision to allow certain classified employees to re-elect whether to transfer to a new private service provider, while denying the same opportunity to employees converted to classified status at a later date.

The union sought a declaration that the re-election was improper and an order allowing the later-converted employees to elect.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that even if the re-election breached the parties' memorandum of settlement, it did not detrimentally affect the employees for whom the union sought relief, as the settlement expressly stated they had no right of election.

The union grieved the layoff of Parental Support Workers (PSWs) and the transfer of some of their duties (defending arrears in family court) to lawyers in the Ministry's legal services branch.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that the transfer of family court work to lawyers violated an implied term of the collective agreement protecting bargaining-unit work, as the work was sufficient to occupy two full-time employees and historically belonged exclusively to PSWs.

However, the Board found that the grievors were not entitled to follow the work to the legal services branch under Article 20, because the transferred duties constituted much less than 50% of their former workload.

Finally, the Board concluded that the Ministry's broader decision to discontinue PSW services was a reasonable exercise of management rights, rationally related to the reorganization of the welfare system.

The union requested an order directing the Ministry of Transportation to allow employees converted between December 1, 2002 and February 25, 2003 to elect whether to transfer to a new service provider.

The Grievance Settlement Board denied the request, noting that reasons for the decision and a ruling on the declaration sought by the union would be issued in due course.

The union filed grievances claiming that former Crown employees who worked at psychiatric institutions transferred to broader public sector hospitals were entitled to termination and severance pay under the Employment Standards Act.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the claims for employees with less than five years of service for severance pay and less than three months for termination pay, based on statutory minimums.

The Board found that classified employees who accepted job offers with receiving hospitals were terminated within the meaning of the Act, as the deemed resignation provisions in the collective agreement could not override statutory employment standards.

The issue of whether the employer applied the sale of business provisions in an arbitrary or discriminatory manner to deny severance pay to certain employees was remitted to the parties for factual determination.

The union filed a grievance regarding the conversion of unclassified driver examiners to classified status under the collective agreement.

The issue was whether the 54 days of the 2002 OPSEU strike should count toward the 18-month service requirement for conversion.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that a literal reading of the collective agreement required the performance of work, meaning the strike period did not count.

The Board also found that the employer's approach did not violate the settlement agreement or the implied prohibition against arbitrary and discriminatory treatment.