47 total
Interim disclosure order limited to Ministry of Health pending resolution of initial grievance.
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.
Consent order issued detailing disclosure requirements for non-employees engaged by the employer.
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.
Employer ordered to disclose grievors' email accounts and lists of other disciplined employees.
The Union sought disclosure of the grievors' email accounts and lists of other employees disciplined as a result of the same workplace investigation.
The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the Employer to provide the requested email accounts and lists detailing the discipline of both OPSEU and non-OPSEU employees, subject to the condition that the disclosure be used solely for the purpose of the litigation.
Board orders initial disclosure of consultant information for one ministry in bargaining unit work grievance.
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.
Employer breached reasonable efforts obligation by failing to notify union of job opportunities during divestment.
The union filed a grievance alleging the employer failed to make reasonable efforts to ensure continuing employment for affected engineers following the divestment of social housing functions to municipalities.
The Grievance Settlement Board found that while the employer made significant efforts to secure job offers with the new employers, it failed in its reasonable efforts obligation by notifying OPSEU of potential job opportunities but failing to similarly notify PEGO or the affected engineers.
The matter was remitted to the parties on the issue of remedy.
Surplus employees may use unpaid leave to bridge to Factor 80 after March 31, 2004.
The union filed a grievance concerning the entitlement of surplus employees to retire with an actuarially unreduced pension upon reaching 'Factor 80'.
The issue was whether an employee who receives a notice of layoff by March 31, 2004, but does not reach Factor 80 until a later date, is entitled to 'bridge' to Factor 80 using unpaid leave.
The Grievance Settlement Board held that there was nothing in the collective agreement indicating that surplus employees seeking to bridge to Factor 80 should be treated differently from those bridging to Factor 90 or 60/20.
The grievance was allowed, permitting employees to use the pension bridging option to reach Surplus Factor 80 after March 31, 2004.
Grievance dismissed; mandatory job offer provisions for divested employees only apply to transfers by RFP or tender.
The union filed a policy grievance and an individual grievance alleging the employer failed to comply with its obligations to make reasonable efforts regarding continuing employment when it divested social housing functions to municipalities.
The union argued that under paragraph 5(1)(a) of Appendix 'A' of the collective agreement, affected employees should have been offered jobs with the new employer at no less than 85% of their salary.
The employer argued that paragraph 5(1)(a) only applied to transfers by request for proposal (RFP) or tender, which did not occur here as the transfer was by operation of law under the Social Housing Reform Act, 2000.
The arbitrator agreed with the employer, finding that the mandatory obligation in paragraph 5(1)(a) only arises in circumstances of an RFP/tender process.
The grievance on this point was dismissed, but the employer remained subject to the general reasonable efforts obligation in paragraph 1.
Appendix 13 relocation rights apply when a jail's work is transferred to facilities beyond 40 kilometres.
The union filed a grievance alleging the employer violated the collective agreement's redeployment provisions when it closed three jails and transferred the inmates and work to other facilities.
The central issue was whether the closure and transfer constituted a change in an 'operation's headquarters' under Appendix 13, which would trigger specific relocation and surplus rights for affected employees.
The employer argued that 'operation' meant a functioning, cohesive unit, not just the work itself.
The Grievance Settlement Board held that 'operation' refers to the productive activity or work.
Since the work of the closed jails was moved to locations beyond 40 kilometres, Appendix 13 applied, granting affected employees the choice to move with the work or be declared surplus.
Minutes of settlement regarding health and safety issues for correctional officers made an order of the Board.
The parties engaged in a mediation/arbitration process regarding outstanding health and safety issues.
They reached a Memorandum of Settlement concerning equipment, training, and communication protocols for correctional officers on community escorts.
The Grievance Settlement Board made the Minutes of Settlement an order of the Board, with the arbitrator remaining seized of the implementation and remaining outstanding issues.
Grievance for expenses and overtime dismissed as barred by full and final release in settlement.
The grievor's employment was terminated and later resolved through Minutes of Settlement following his acquittal on criminal charges.
The grievor subsequently filed new grievances claiming expenses and overtime payments incurred during his suspension and termination.
The Public Service Grievance Board dismissed the claims, finding that the Minutes of Settlement contained a full and final release clause barring any new claims relating to the termination.
The Board held that the employer had not breached the settlement agreement and that the grievor was bound by its terms.
Consent award issued incorporating settlement terms for transferring employee files during psychiatric hospital governance transfer.
The parties agreed to a consent award resolving policy grievances related to the transfer of governance of psychiatric hospitals.
The settlement sets out the process for transferring personnel, WSIB, and employee health files, including employees' rights to review and request removal of documents from their files prior to transfer.
The Vice-Chair remained seized of any disputes regarding the completeness of the transfer agreements.
Grievance for enhanced severance pay dismissed as ambulance service transfer fell under Schedule B.
The union filed a grievance on behalf of paramedics claiming entitlement to enhanced severance pay and pay in lieu of notice following the transfer of ambulance services from the Ministry of Health to a regional municipality, which contracted the service to a hospital.
The union argued the transfer fell under Schedule D of the collective agreement, or alternatively, that the paramedics were entitled to surplus benefits under Schedule B because their seniority was not fully carried over for bumping purposes at the new employer.
The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding the transfer fell under Schedule B and that the seniority carryover provision did not require the new employer's seniority system to provide identical bumping rights as the Ontario Public Service.
Grievances dismissed; Board lacks jurisdiction over constructive dismissal and claims were filed out of time.
The grievors, former Area Managers, alleged they were constructively dismissed when their positions were eliminated and replaced by Area Vice President positions, for which they unsuccessfully competed.
The Employer raised a preliminary objection that the Board lacked jurisdiction.
The Board upheld the objection and dismissed the grievances, finding that the grievors failed to file within the 14-day statutory time limit and that the Board has no jurisdiction under the Public Service Act to adjudicate claims of constructive dismissal for Schedule I employees who were surplused rather than discharged for cause.
Board proceedings stayed due to reasonable apprehension of bias arising from internal disclosures about Vice-Chair removals.
The applicant union brought unfair labour practice and contempt applications against the respondents, including a Minister of the Crown.
During the proceedings, the Vice-Chair disclosed that all Board Vice-Chairs had received confidential information regarding the selection process for the recent removal of four Vice-Chairs, an issue central to the applicant's allegations of political interference and lack of institutional independence.
The respondents moved for recusal.
The Board held that, given the high standard of natural justice applicable to its adjudicative functions, the disclosure of this highly relevant but undisclosed information raised a reasonable apprehension of bias.
The proceedings were stayed.
Board provides directions on unresolved essential services agreement issues for public service employees.
The Ontario Public Service Employees Union and the Crown applied to the Ontario Labour Relations Board to determine five unresolved matters in their negotiation of an essential services agreement under the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act, 1993.
The Board provided directions on the definition of essential versus emergency services, the arrangement of work hours, and the timing for selecting employees to provide essential services.
The Board declined to make determinations on the extension of non-classified contracts and the cessation of benefits during a strike, finding these issues lacked a sufficient connection to the statutory mandate for essential services agreements.
Employers' organization met statutory requirements for accreditation, but certificate withheld pending procedural determination.
The applicant employers' organization applied for accreditation in the construction industry under section 125 of the Labour Relations Act.
The Board found that the applicant was a properly constituted employers' organization and that the proposed unit of employers was appropriate for collective bargaining.
The Board determined that the applicant represented a majority of the employers in the unit, who in turn employed a majority of the employees affected.
Although all statutory requirements for accreditation were met, the Board withheld the issuance of the certificate pending a determination on whether it would continue its practice of compiling a Final Schedule 'F' of employers.
Union granted access to employer's mining camp property for organizing purposes under section 11.
The applicant unions applied under section 11 of the Labour Relations Act for a direction allowing their representatives access to the employer's property, specifically the mining camp where employees reside, for the purpose of union organizing.
The employer objected to the scope and duration of the access, particularly regarding the bunkhouse areas located within the secured mine site.
The Board granted the application, finding no compelling reason to restrict access to areas where employees normally reside, and directed access subject to specific conditions and time limits.
Representation vote ordered due to union intimidation evidence, despite employer's use of illegal immigrants.
The applicant union applied for certification in the construction industry.
The respondent employer argued that two employees were working illegally under the Immigration Act and should not be counted, and that the union's membership evidence was tainted by misrepresentation and intimidation.
The Board held that immigration status is irrelevant to employee status under the Labour Relations Act.
However, based on evidence that a union organizer threatened an employee with job loss if he did not join, the Board found sufficient doubt about the membership evidence to order a representation vote.
One Board member dissented, arguing that the employer's illegal conduct and the lack of employee complaints should have led to automatic certification.
Board issues certification after finding cleanup work unrelated to renovations is not construction work.
The applicant union applied for certification to represent construction labourers employed by the respondent.
The parties disputed whether three employees performing cleanup work at a recently purchased building were construction labourers.
The Board found that the cleanup work was not closely connected to planned renovations and therefore was not construction work.
Having resolved the bargaining unit composition, the Board found the union had the requisite membership support and issued certificates for the industrial, commercial and institutional sector and all other sectors in the appropriate geographic areas.
Preliminary motion to dismiss a request for reconsideration denied; Board affirmed its broad reconsideration jurisdiction.
The applicant union brought a preliminary motion to dismiss a request for reconsideration of a Board decision that had issued two certificates to the union.
The union argued that the Board lacked jurisdiction to reconsider its decision or, alternatively, should exercise its discretion to refuse the request.
The Board dismissed the preliminary motion, finding that section 106(1) of the Labour Relations Act grants it broad jurisdiction to reconsider any decision.
The Board held that the union's arguments regarding reliance and finality went to the exercise of the Board's discretion, which should only be determined after a full hearing on the merits of the reconsideration request.
