4 total
Grievances dismissed; Employer had no obligation to inform surplussed employees of leave of absence option for pension bridging.
The Union filed grievances on behalf of several residential counselors following the closure of the Rideau Regional Centre and Huronia Regional Centre.
The grievors alleged that the Employer improperly surplussed them and failed to inform them of the option to take an unpaid leave of absence to bridge their service to qualify for the Surplus Factor 80 pension option.
The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievances, finding no violation of the collective agreement and no bad faith on the part of the Employer.
The Board held that the Employer was not obligated to inform employees of the leave of absence option to reach Surplus Factor 80, and the grievors' failure to qualify was due to timing rather than differential treatment.
Employer's preliminary motion to dismiss grievances for lack of a prima facie case denied.
The Union filed grievances alleging improper surplussing of employees at the Rideau Regional Centre and Huronia Regional Centre.
The Employer raised a preliminary objection, arguing the grievances should be summarily dismissed for failing to establish a prima facie case of a collective agreement violation.
The Union argued the Employer violated various provisions by failing to provide accurate information about options, including leaves of absence to bridge to an unreduced pension under the Surplus Factor 80 program, and by treating the grievors differently from other employees.
The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the Employer's motion, finding that the grievances raised substantive issues of contract interpretation and bad faith that fell within its jurisdiction to determine on the merits.
Grievance dismissed; conditional resignation valid and employer fulfilled duty to accommodate before denying leave request.
The grievor, a Human Rights Investigator, requested a one-year unpaid leave of absence to accept a temporary position at Toyota, citing mental health issues related to his current workplace.
When the Employer did not provide a decision by his requested start date, the grievor submitted a conditional resignation, stating he would resign if the leave was denied.
The Employer subsequently denied the leave request and accepted the resignation.
The Union grieved, arguing the resignation was not voluntary and that the Employer failed in its duty to accommodate the grievor's disability.
The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the grievor had a clear subjective intent to resign, confirmed by his objective conduct of starting work at Toyota.
The Board also held that the Employer fulfilled its duty to accommodate by seeking medical information and determining the grievor could return to work with a reduced caseload, and that the denial of the leave request was reasonable.
Grievor's red-circled salary under settlement terms precluded entitlement to negotiated wage increases during reassignment.
The parties executed a settlement placing the grievor, who was returning from long-term income protection, into a new position.
The settlement provided that she would receive a salary equivalent to her former position for six months, referencing Article 7.5 of the collective agreement.
The union argued that under Article 42.11, the grievor was entitled to negotiated wage increases that took effect during this six-month period.
The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the union's argument, finding that Article 42.11 only applies to employees who receive notice of layoff, which the grievor did not.
The Board held that the settlement terms clearly red-circled the grievor's salary, precluding any wage increases during the six-month period.
