188 total
Correctional officer requiring smoke-free accommodation placed at youth facility; mileage claim for extra commute denied.
The grievor, a Correctional Officer with asthma and a sensitivity to cigarette smoke, required workplace accommodation.
The Grievance Settlement Board previously found the Employer could not accommodate him at his home position and directed placement elsewhere.
The parties disputed whether the appropriate placement was at Brookside Youth Centre, Toronto West Detention Centre, or Central East Correctional Centre.
The Board determined Brookside was the most appropriate placement due to a significantly lower risk of exposure to cigarette smoke, as youth facilities have had a smoke-free policy for over ten years and the physical structure reduces risk.
The Union's claim for mileage for the additional travel distance to Brookside was dismissed, as the employee is obliged to cooperate reasonably with accommodation efforts and the additional distance was not significant.
Appropriate accommodation placement for asthmatic Correctional Officer determined to be Brookside Youth Centre; mileage claim denied.
The grievor, a Correctional Officer with asthma and a sensitivity to cigarette smoke, required accommodation after it was determined he could not be accommodated at his home position at the Toronto East Detention Centre.
The Employer offered a position at the Toronto West Detention Centre, which the grievor rejected.
The Grievance Settlement Board determined that the appropriate placement for the grievor was at the Brookside Youth Centre.
The Board also dismissed the Union's claim that the grievor was entitled to a mileage rate for the additional 19 kilometers he would be required to travel to Brookside.
Grievor awarded compensation for lost overtime but denied compensation for lost promotional opportunities.
The union sought compensation for a grievor's lost promotional opportunities and lost overtime arising from the employer's failure to accommodate his sensitivity to second-hand smoke.
The arbitrator dismissed the claim for lost promotional opportunities, finding the employer properly denied an acting position that would have placed the grievor in a smoke-filled environment.
The arbitrator granted the claim for lost overtime in part, awarding compensation based on an average of 5 lost overtime hours per month since 1994.
Employer's accommodation offer at a further facility was reasonable; grievor awarded interest and statutory holiday compensation.
The parties resolved some outstanding issues arising from grievances filed by the grievor, a Correctional Officer with asthma who requires a smoke-free workplace.
The Grievance Settlement Board determined three remaining issues: (1) the Employer's offer of accommodation at a facility further from the grievor's home was not unreasonable based solely on the additional travel time and distance; (2) the grievor was entitled to interest on the amount paid for credits used to top up sick leave; and (3) the grievor was entitled to compensation for statutory holidays missed due to the Employer's failure to accommodate him.
Policy grievance dismissed; allowing some employees to re-elect did not harm those expressly denied election rights.
The union filed a policy grievance challenging the Ministry's decision to allow certain classified employees to re-elect whether to transfer to a new private service provider, while denying the same opportunity to employees converted to classified status at a later date.
The union sought a declaration that the re-election was improper and an order allowing the later-converted employees to elect.
The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that even if the re-election breached the parties' memorandum of settlement, it did not detrimentally affect the employees for whom the union sought relief, as the settlement expressly stated they had no right of election.
Transfer of bargaining-unit work to lawyers violated collective agreement, but grievors not entitled to follow work.
The union grieved the layoff of Parental Support Workers (PSWs) and the transfer of some of their duties (defending arrears in family court) to lawyers in the Ministry's legal services branch.
The Grievance Settlement Board held that the transfer of family court work to lawyers violated an implied term of the collective agreement protecting bargaining-unit work, as the work was sufficient to occupy two full-time employees and historically belonged exclusively to PSWs.
However, the Board found that the grievors were not entitled to follow the work to the legal services branch under Article 20, because the transferred duties constituted much less than 50% of their former workload.
Finally, the Board concluded that the Ministry's broader decision to discontinue PSW services was a reasonable exercise of management rights, rationally related to the reorganization of the welfare system.
Union's request for an order allowing converted employees to elect transfer to new service provider denied.
The union requested an order directing the Ministry of Transportation to allow employees converted between December 1, 2002 and February 25, 2003 to elect whether to transfer to a new service provider.
The Grievance Settlement Board denied the request, noting that reasons for the decision and a ruling on the declaration sought by the union would be issued in due course.
Time spent on strike does not count toward the 18-month service requirement for conversion to classified status.
The union filed a grievance regarding the conversion of unclassified driver examiners to classified status under the collective agreement.
The issue was whether the 54 days of the 2002 OPSEU strike should count toward the 18-month service requirement for conversion.
The Grievance Settlement Board held that a literal reading of the collective agreement required the performance of work, meaning the strike period did not count.
The Board also found that the employer's approach did not violate the settlement agreement or the implied prohibition against arbitrary and discriminatory treatment.
Employer failed to accommodate correctional officer's sensitivity to cigarette smoke by inadequately enforcing smoking policy.
The grievor, a Correctional Officer with asthma and a sensitivity to cigarette smoke, filed grievances alleging the Employer failed to accommodate his handicap by not providing a smoke-free environment at the Toronto Jail.
The Grievance Settlement Board found that despite assigning the grievor to designated non-smoking areas, the Employer failed to adequately enforce its smoking policy, resulting in frequent exposure to smoke by staff and managers.
The Board concluded the Employer failed to accommodate the grievor to the point of undue hardship and ordered compensation for losses resulting from absences caused by smoke exposure.
Preliminary objection dismissed; release clause in prior settlement did not bar the current grievance.
The employer raised a preliminary objection that the union's grievance, which sought a right of re-election for classified employees regarding a transfer of services, was barred by a memorandum of settlement resolving an earlier grievance.
The arbitrator interpreted the release clause in the settlement, which barred claims 'arising out of' the prior decision.
The arbitrator concluded that the release only covered claims posed by the earlier grievance and left unresolved, and did not extend to the current claim for re-election.
The preliminary objection was dismissed.
Intervenor standing denied to union representing lawyers performing disputed work formerly done by grievors.
The union (OPSEU) grieved the transfer of family court work formerly performed by Parental Support Workers to lawyers employed by the Ministry.
The Association of Law Officers of the Crown (ALOC), representing the lawyers, applied for intervenor standing.
The Grievance Settlement Board reviewed the law on third-party standing at arbitration, distinguishing between third parties with a direct legal interest under a collective agreement and those with merely a financial or commercial interest.
The Board concluded that ALOC's interest was analogous to that of a third-party contractor whose financial interests might be affected by a contracting-out grievance, rather than a union with a competing legal claim to the work.
Consequently, ALOC's application for standing was denied.
Employer's accommodation proposal rejected due to ongoing risk of exposure to cigarette smoke at the facility.
The Grievance Settlement Board evaluated the Employer's proposal to accommodate a Correctional Officer with asthma and sensitivity to cigarette smoke by assigning him temporarily to the administrative offices of the Toronto East Detention Centre.
The Board found the proposal unreasonable because the grievor would still be exposed to cigarette smoke in other areas of the institution, such as the locker room and washroom, due to ongoing violations of the smoking policy.
The Employer was directed to attempt to accommodate the grievor at a location other than the Toronto East Detention Centre.
Grievance allowed; impending privatization did not negate continuing need for unclassified driver examiners' work.
The union grieved the employer's refusal to convert unclassified driver examiners to classified status after they had worked full-time for more than two years.
The employer argued that the impending privatization of driver examination services meant there was no 'continuing need' for the work.
The Grievance Settlement Board found that the employer's plan to continue providing services for at least six months prior to the transfer constituted a determination of continuing need.
The grievance was allowed, and the employer was directed to convert all eligible driver examiners.
Employer's accommodation proposal for asthmatic correctional officer found unreasonable due to ongoing second-hand smoke exposure.
Following a prior decision finding that the employer failed to accommodate the grievor's occupational asthma and sensitivity to cigarette smoke, the employer proposed assigning the grievor to the control room at the Toronto East Detention Centre.
The grievor rejected the proposal, arguing he would still be exposed to second-hand smoke.
The Grievance Settlement Board found the employer's proposal unreasonable, as evidence demonstrated a fairly high risk of exposure to cigarette smoke in the control room.
The Board held that the grievor's decision not to try the accommodation was not unreasonable.
Board has jurisdiction to review whether employer's refusal to negotiate compressed work week was discriminatory.
The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss grievances alleging that its refusal to negotiate a compressed work week schedule (CWWS) violated the collective agreement.
The employer argued that the collective agreement did not compel it to negotiate a CWWS and that the Board lacked jurisdiction.
The union argued that the employer's refusal was discriminatory and violated management rights, health and safety, and overtime provisions.
The Vice-Chair dismissed the preliminary objection, finding that while the employer is not compelled to negotiate a CWWS, its decision not to do so must be made in good faith, for genuine government purposes, and without violating other provisions of the collective agreement, such as the non-discrimination clause.
The Board has jurisdiction to review the employer's decision-making process.
Employer failed to accommodate asthmatic correctional officer to the point of undue hardship regarding second-hand smoke.
The grievor, a correctional officer with asthma, filed grievances alleging the Employer failed to accommodate his disability by exposing him to second-hand cigarette smoke at the Toronto East Detention Centre.
Despite the implementation of smoking policies, the grievor was frequently exposed to smoke due to poor enforcement and assignments that required him to enter inmate living areas.
The arbitrator found that the grievor's asthma constituted a handicap under the Human Rights Code and that the Employer failed to demonstrate it had accommodated him to the point of undue hardship.
The grievances were allowed, and the Employer was directed to renew accommodation efforts and compensate the grievor for lost time caused by smoke exposure.
Employer's preliminary motions to dismiss salary parity grievance for lack of jurisdiction and untimeliness denied.
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.
Extension of time granted for some pension grievances but denied for others with strict time limits.
The union filed four grievances concerning the transfer of psychiatric facilities from the provincial government to hospitals and the subsequent enrollment of transferred employees in the Hospitals of Ontario Pension Plan (HOOPP) instead of the OPSEU Pension Trust (OPT).
The employer raised a preliminary objection that the grievances were untimely.
The Grievance Settlement Board found that the grievances were filed late but granted an extension of time under s. 48(16) of the Labour Relations Act for the claims based on Appendices 9, 11, and article 2.1 of Appendix 18, as the delay was largely due to the union pursuing court proceedings and the employer suffered no substantial prejudice.
However, the Board denied an extension for the claims based on article 6.0 of Appendix 18, which had a strict seven-day time limit, due to the length of the delay and the lack of explanation.
Third-party hospitals denied standing in arbitration over pension plan obligations following employee transfers.
The union filed grievances alleging the employer violated the collective agreement by failing to use reasonable or best efforts to persuade receiving hospitals to keep transferred employees in the union's pension plan.
Six hospitals applied for third-party standing to participate in the arbitration hearing, arguing the outcome could have significant financial repercussions for them.
The arbitrator reviewed the case law on third-party standing, distinguishing between employees governed by a collective agreement, third-party unions in jurisdictional disputes, and third-party contractors.
The arbitrator concluded the hospitals' financial interest was analogous to that of a contractor and did not confer an entitlement to notice or standing.
The applications for standing were denied.
Board rules reorganization and transfer of duties may violate collective agreement if majority of work remains intact.
The union alleged that the employer improperly surplussed Parental Support Workers (PSWs) when their duties were reorganized and transferred to other components of the Ministry, including outside the bargaining unit.
The Grievance Settlement Board determined that the employer's reorganization did not inherently violate the collective agreement or section 22(4) of the Public Service Act.
However, the Board found that the union could potentially establish a violation if the largest portion of the PSWs' duties (over 50%) was transferred intact to the Legal Services Branch, or if the transfer of work outside the bargaining unit violated an implied restriction.
The matter was deferred for further evidence and argument.
