Andrew Baker

The grievor, a non-engineer who had historically been paid the same salary as professional engineers, filed a grievance after a new collective agreement for engineers resulted in a significant pay disparity.

The employer brought preliminary motions to dismiss the grievance for lack of jurisdiction and untimeliness.

The Board dismissed the employer's motions, finding that it had jurisdiction to hear allegations of a breach of a working condition or term of employment.

The Board also extended the time limits for filing the grievance, noting the delay was bona fide, the grievance had significant ongoing monetary implications, and the employer was not prejudiced.

The union challenged the employer's calculation of the continuous service dates for two employees following their conversion from unclassified to classified status pursuant to settlement agreements.

For the first employee, the union argued his prior fee-for-service work should be included in his continuous service date based on a 1990 tribunal decision and subsequent agreements.

For the second employee, the union argued her continuous service date should reflect a 'latent application' of a return-to-work protocol regarding strike time and match the treatment of another group of employees.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed both claims, finding the employer correctly calculated the continuous service dates in accordance with the collective agreement and the specific terms of the settlement agreements, and that the employees could not retroactively claim benefits they were not entitled to when unclassified.

The union brought a motion alleging the employer abused process by breaching an undertaking to search for suitable positions for the grievor throughout the Ontario Public Service (OPS), rather than just within the Ministry of Health.

The union sought costs, general damages, and an order directing the search.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the employer had undertaken to search throughout the OPS concurrently with the Ministry search.

The Board directed the employer to identify possible job matches across the OPS by a specified date, but found it premature to award general damages or rule on the adequacy of the search, and reserved judgment on costs.

The grievor, an administrative assistant, alleged that the employer discriminated against her on the basis of race and union activity during a temporary assignment and when she was denied a subsequent temporary position in the Blood Program.

The employer maintained that the grievor lacked the necessary skills for the temporary assignment, which was not extended due to performance issues and lack of need.

The subsequent position was awarded to a more qualified candidate following an interview process.

The Grievance Settlement Board found no evidence of bad faith, racial discrimination, or anti-union animus in the employer's actions.

The grievance was dismissed.