73 total
Employer ordered to disclose documents regarding LTIP benefits but not rehabilitative employment benefits.
The Union sought disclosure of documents relating to the determination of an employee's entitlement to Long Term Income Protection (LTIP) benefits and rehabilitative employment benefits.
The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the Employer to disclose documents regarding LTIP benefits, including its contract with Manulife Financial, but declined to order disclosure regarding rehabilitative employment benefits at this time.
Employer's preliminary motion dismissed; grievance language broad enough to encompass prior suspensions as ongoing harassment.
The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss portions of a grievance, arguing that the union was improperly attempting to expand the grounds of the original grievance to include three prior suspensions, and alternatively, that challenges to those suspensions were untimely.
The arbitrator found that the original grievance, which alleged improper, unfair, and unreasonable actions jeopardizing the grievor's job security, was broad enough to encompass the three suspensions as part of an ongoing pattern of alleged harassment.
Because the suspensions were considered part of an ongoing allegation of harassment rather than discrete incidents, the grievance was deemed timely.
The employer's motions were dismissed.
Board reviews and updates timelines for implementing remedial orders addressing workplace harassment at Toronto Jail.
The Grievance Settlement Board conducted a review of the implementation of its previous remedial orders aimed at restoring a workplace free from harassment and discrimination at the Toronto Jail.
The Board noted progress on several fronts, including the issuance of Standing Orders, management training, and the installation of security equipment.
The Board varied certain orders, establishing new deadlines for performance development plans, diversity training, and the implementation of the new Workplace Discrimination and Harassment Prevention (WDHP) policy.
The Board also clarified the role of the seconded Deputy-Superintendent in overseeing the restoration process.
Preliminary objection dismissed; former employee can grieve job competition under collective agreement's restricted competition rights.
The complainant, a former fixed-term unclassified contract employee, alleged the employer conducted an unfair job competition.
The employer raised a preliminary objection to the arbitrability of the dispute, arguing that as a former employee, the complainant could not advance a grievance regarding the competition.
The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the preliminary objection, finding that the collective agreement explicitly granted former employees the right to apply for restricted competitions for 24 months after layoff.
The Board concluded this negotiated benefit created a substantive right enforceable through the grievance arbitration procedure.
Grievance dismissed as untimely; grievor's failure to read disciplinary letters was not a reasonable excuse.
The union filed a grievance challenging three disciplinary suspensions given to the grievor.
The employer raised a preliminary objection that the grievance was filed beyond the time limits set out in the collective agreement.
The grievor argued she did not realize the suspensions were disciplinary and was under stress due to her mother's passing.
The Grievance Settlement Board found the grievor's explanation unreasonable, noting the disciplinary letters were clear and she had filed grievances previously.
Applying the Becker test, the Board declined to exercise its discretion to extend the time limits due to the unreasonable and lengthy delay.
The grievance was dismissed.
Union ordered to provide particulars of grievances to the Employer.
The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the Union to provide particulars to the Employer regarding two grievances filed by the grievor.
The particulars must include the who, what, when, and where of the facts relied upon, relevant medical reports, alleged collective agreement and legislative violations, and the remedies sought.
Grievance dismissed; assignment of new duties was not a temporary assignment to a higher classification.
The union grieved that the employer breached the collective agreement by assigning the grievor new duties related to fleet and facilities maintenance without paying him at a higher classification rate.
The employer argued the grievance was an inarbitrable classification dispute.
The union characterized it as a breach of the temporary assignment provisions.
The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that the assignment of new duties was not temporary and did not constitute a temporary assignment to another position.
Preliminary objection dismissed; Board has jurisdiction over retroactive pay claim where reclassification already occurred.
The Employer raised a preliminary objection arguing that the grievance filed by six IRP Issuing Clerks was a classification grievance over which the Grievance Settlement Board lacked jurisdiction.
The Union argued the grievance concerned retroactive pay and an arbitrary exercise of management rights, as the Employer had already recognized its error and reclassified the grievors but denied them the retroactive pay provided to other similarly situated employees.
The Vice-Chair dismissed the Employer's objection, finding that because the Employer had already reclassified the grievors, the Board did not need to determine their proper classification, and thus had jurisdiction to hear the claim for retroactive pay.
Grievance over denied vacation time dismissed; employer reasonably exercised discretion to maintain client service.
The grievor, an Employment Training Consultant, filed a grievance alleging the employer contravened the collective agreement by denying 8 days of his 33-day summer vacation request.
The employer denied the 8 days because they overlapped with the vacation request of the only other bilingual consultant in the office, raising concerns about maintaining adequate client service.
The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the manager's decision was not based on a rigid policy but was a genuine exercise of discretion that reasonably balanced the operational needs of the office with the employees' interests.
Grievances for missed overtime partially allowed; remedy limited to priority offers for future overtime shifts.
The complainant, an Operational Manager at a detention centre, filed multiple grievances claiming compensation for missed overtime opportunities, including community escort duty.
The Public Service Grievance Board found that the employer did not breach the terms of employment by using police for community escort duty, as the situations were not emergencies.
The Board also dismissed claims regarding shifts filled at straight time.
However, the Board allowed grievances where the complainant's name was skipped or where overtime was improperly offered to acting managers or managers with higher accumulated hours.
The Board ordered the employer to offer the complainant additional overtime opportunities on a priority basis, rejecting the complainant's request for monetary compensation.
Grievances dismissed; staffing shortages for hospital escorts did not constitute an 'emergency' requiring managers before police.
The complainants, Operational Managers at the Central East Correctional Centre, grieved the employer's failure to offer them overtime opportunities for hospital escort duty before hiring paid duty police.
They argued that staffing shortages constituted an 'emergency' under the applicable policy, which required managers to be used before police in an emergency.
The Public Service Grievance Board dismissed the grievances, finding that the ordinary meaning of 'emergency' implies sudden danger and immediacy, which did not apply to the recurring staffing situations grieved.
The employer's practice of using police for non-911 hospital escorts did not violate the policy.
Grievance over denial of tuition assistance dismissed; employer's decision was a reasonable exercise of discretion.
The grievor, a Review Officer with the Pay Equity Commission, grieved the employer's denial of his request for tuition assistance for an MBA program.
He alleged the denial was arbitrary, discriminatory, and in bad faith, constituting a reprisal for his previous pay equity complaints and grievances.
The employer maintained the denial was a valid exercise of discretion based on fiscal restraint and the fact that the MBA was not directly related to his core duties.
The Public Service Grievance Board dismissed the grievance, finding no evidence of bad faith or improper motivation, and concluding that the manager's decision was a reasonable exercise of discretion given the fiscal pressures at the time.
Grievance regarding training for performance management plans dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and failure to establish prima facie case.
The employer brought a motion to dismiss a grievance filed by Operational Managers claiming inadequate training to complete their performance management plans.
The employer argued the Board lacked jurisdiction as the matter related to performance evaluation.
The Board agreed, finding that the complaints about timelines and alleged threats were directly related to the method of evaluating performance, which is excluded from its jurisdiction under Regulation 378/07.
Furthermore, the Board found the grievance failed to establish a prima facie case that any term or condition of employment had been breached.
