Susan L. Stewart

The Union filed a policy grievance claiming that its bargaining rights extended to the PRESTO division of Metrolinx, arguing that PRESTO was functionally integrated into Metrolinx and that certain positions within PRESTO performed bargaining unit work.

The Employer maintained that the Union's bargaining rights were restricted to the GO Transit division, as explicitly stated in the collective agreement.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the collective agreement clearly restricted bargaining rights to GO Transit and that PRESTO existed as a legitimate, identifiable division without sufficient functional integration to extend the bargaining unit.

In a grievance arbitration concerning the scope of the Union's bargaining rights, the Employer sought to bring a summary judgment motion after Phase 1 of the evidence.

The Union objected, arguing the parties' procedural agreement precluded such a motion.

The arbitrator agreed with the Union, finding the agreement's provisions for a holistic approach and final argument on all issues precluded a summary judgment motion at this stage.

The Union also sought an order requiring the Employer to detail discrepancies between job descriptions and actual duties for 88 positions.

The arbitrator dismissed this request, holding it was inappropriate in an adversarial proceeding to compel the Employer to conduct extensive research to build the Union's case.

In a policy grievance asserting bargaining rights over PRESTO and UP Express, the union sought production of documents showing when bargaining unit members performed work for other lines of business.

The employer objected, arguing the request was overbroad and a fishing expedition.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that the union's broad request for all instances of crossover work was overbroad.

However, the Board ordered production of documents relating specifically to the work the union had particularized at UP Express and PRESTO, finding this narrower request to be a proportionate and specific inquiry relevant to the union's theory of the case.

The parties submitted joint written submissions requesting that the Employment Screening Checks Operational Guidelines and Appeal Process for AMAPCEO-represented employees be made an order of the Grievance Settlement Board.

The Board granted the request and ordered that the guidelines, which establish an expedited appeal process for regular employees denied security clearance for their home positions, constitute an order of the Board.

The parties submitted joint written submissions requesting that the Employment Screening Checks Operational Guidelines be constituted as an order of the Grievance Settlement Board.

The Board granted the request and ordered the adoption of the guidelines, which establish an expedited appeal process for regular employees who are denied security clearance for their home positions.

The employer brought a motion to dismiss a union grievance alleging that the employer violated the collective agreement by refusing to allow an elected union representative to attend joint committee meetings in person due to alleged safety concerns.

The employer insisted the representative participate by teleconference.

The employer argued the facts alleged did not establish a prima facie violation of the collective agreement.

The arbitrator dismissed the employer's motion, finding that the facts as alleged were capable of establishing a violation of the collective agreement, and directed that the grievance proceed to a hearing on the merits.

The Union sought interim relief to compel the Employer to provide Crown counsel with information that an inspector's discharge was being challenged at arbitration, in the context of a McNeil disclosure letter.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that the relief sought had essentially been obtained because the inspector's views, including the fact that his discharge was proceeding to arbitration, had already been put before the Crown.

The unions sought specific orders requiring the employer to immediately commence harmonization of security checks in legacy ministries in accordance with the March 2005 Policy and Guidelines.

The employer had recently provided a new draft Employment Screening Checks Policy and argued that the requested orders would be premature and could conflict with Cabinet's statutory discretion.

The Grievance Settlement Board declined to issue the requested orders, finding that the parties were best served by deferring consideration to allow them to discuss the new draft policy and attempt to reach a mutually satisfactory resolution.

The Board remained seized of the matter.

The unions filed a grievance alleging that the Employer failed to implement Phase 3 of the Ontario Public Service Personnel Screening Checks Policy in a timely manner.

The Grievance Settlement Board declared that the Employer's failure to commence harmonization by late 2010 was inconsistent with a reasonable interpretation of its obligations under the Policy.

However, because the Employer presented a plan to commence the process during the hearing, the Board declined to order specific timelines for completion, immediate harmonization of re-checks, or formal document production, allowing the Employer's process to unfold while remaining seized of the matter.

The Union filed a policy grievance alleging that the Employer violated privacy legislation and the Collective Agreement by proactively obtaining Canada Police Information Centre (CPIC) checks on Occupational Health and Safety Inspectors without their consent.

The Employer argued that the checks were necessary to fulfill its disclosure obligations under the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in R. v. McNeil.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that McNeil did not compel the Crown to proactively obtain third-party CPIC information without consent, noting that privacy interests must be balanced and that the O'Connor process is available for third-party records.

The Board declared that the Employer's broad approach did not accord with an appropriate exercise of management rights and allowed the grievance.

In a policy grievance concerning the application of the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in R. v. McNeil to enforcement officers, the Union sought production of a list of all prosecutions from all Enforcement Ministries since January 2009, detailing whether CPIC checks or discipline disclosures were requested for lead officers.

The Employer opposed the request as a fishing expedition that would require creating documents and argued the information was irrelevant to the core issue of whether McNeil applies at all.

The Grievance Settlement Board denied the production request, finding that the voluminous detailed information sought would not assist in determining the legal issue of whether McNeil creates an obligation for the Enforcement Ministries.

The Union requested disclosure of documents and particulars relating to the MOL Interim Protocol and McNeil disclosure.

The Employer consented to producing certain documents by October 26, 2010, subject to solicitor-client privilege concerns, and undertook to seek instructions on the remaining requests.

The Board ordered the Employer to advise the Union of its position by October 26, 2010, with a conference call to be convened if the parties cannot resolve the remaining issues.

The Union and the Association grieved the Employer's decision to subject certain positions within the Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP) and the Ministry of Revenue (MOR) to security checks under the Ontario Public Service Personnel Screening Checks Policy.

The Employer argued the checks were necessary due to the positions' access to highly sensitive, confidential, and personal information, including federal tax and benefit databases.

The Grievance Settlement Board allowed the grievances, finding that while the information accessed by these positions is confidential, it does not constitute 'highly sensitive information and/or assets' as contemplated by the Policy and its Threat Risk Assessment guidelines, which were intended for positions with access to identity documents, cheque writing machines, or information whose misuse could cause massive financial or political harm.

The union filed grievances claiming that two newly created positions fell within its bargaining unit.

The employer brought a motion to defer the grievances to the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB), arguing that the matter was a jurisdictional dispute involving another union (AMAPCEO) and that an application under section 99 of the Labour Relations Act had already been filed.

The Grievance Settlement Board granted the motion to defer, finding that the OLRB was the more appropriate forum to resolve jurisdictional disputes and avoid parallel proceedings.

The Union sought interim relief to prevent the Employer from obtaining and disclosing CPIC checks on Health and Safety Inspectors without their consent, arguing it violated privacy rights.

The Employer contended the checks were necessary to fulfill its disclosure obligations under the McNeil decision for regulatory prosecutions.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that, on an interim basis, the interests of the administration of justice outweighed the privacy concerns, but ordered procedural safeguards including notice to the Inspectors.

The Board also dismissed the Union's request for production of the Employer's legal opinion, finding that solicitor-client privilege had not been waived.

The bargaining agents sought interim relief against the Employer's new practice of requiring employees to provide fingerprints to obtain criminal record information following a 'hit' on a CPIC check.

The change was prompted by a new RCMP directive.

The bargaining agents argued this violated the collective agreement and the agreed-upon Personnel Screening Checks Policy, which stated fingerprints would only be required as a last resort.

The Grievance Settlement Board granted partial interim relief, ordering that employees with a 'hit' not be asked to provide fingerprints, but allowing the Employer to temporarily modify their duties or reassign them without loss of pay pending the resolution of the grievance.

AMAPCEO sought interim relief to prevent the Ministry of Revenue from conducting personnel screening checks on approximately 214 members pending the resolution of a grievance.

The screening checks were initiated to comply with Canada Revenue Agency requirements for accessing taxpayer information.

The Grievance Settlement Board granted the interim order, finding that AMAPCEO raised an arguable case and that the balance of convenience favoured protecting the employees' privacy interests, which could not be effectively remedied retroactively, over the Employer's implementation timeline.

In a grievance arbitration, the Grievance Settlement Board issued a production order requiring the parties to attempt to identify anonymized examples of relevant documents from training materials.

If unable to do so, the Employer was ordered to identify and disclose anonymized examples from client files, including database screen shots, to be maintained securely to prevent unauthorized disclosure.

The bargaining agents (AMAPCEO and OPSEU) sought interim relief to prevent the Employer from implementing new security checks for employees involved in the Enhanced Driver's Licence program, pending a challenge to the validity of the checks.

The new checks, required by the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative, included criminal, credit, and CSIS checks.

The Grievance Settlement Board granted the interim relief, finding that the balance of convenience favored the bargaining agents because the incursions on privacy could not be reversed if the unions ultimately prevailed, whereas the public could still use passports to cross the border if the program was delayed.

The parties agreed to proceed by way of written submissions.

The Union failed to provide submissions in accordance with the established timeline.

The Employer requested that the grievance be dismissed, and the Union did not respond.

The grievance was dismissed.