188 total
Union waived solicitor-client privilege over strategic legal advice by pleading reliance on advice to justify seniority end-tailing.
In an unfair labour practice and duty of fair representation complaint regarding the end-tailing of seniority following a corporate amalgamation, the applicant sought production of legal opinions and advice provided to the responding union.
The responding union claimed solicitor-client privilege over advice concerning strategy and negotiations, while conceding waiver regarding the legality of end-tailing.
The Board held that by pleading reliance on legal advice to establish the bona fides of its decision to end-tail seniority, the responding union impliedly waived privilege over all related legal advice, including recommended options and strategies.
Production of the documents was ordered.
Weekend shift premium applies only to regularly scheduled shifts, not ad hoc overtime or partial shifts.
The Union filed six grievances concerning the interpretation of Article COR6.1.3 of the Correctional Bargaining Unit Collective Agreement, which provides an $8.00 premium for weekend shifts.
The Union argued that 'shift' meant any continuous period of work, while the Employer argued it meant a regularly scheduled shift.
The Grievance Settlement Board held that 'shift' refers to a regularly scheduled shift, meaning ad hoc overtime or partial shifts do not qualify for the premium unless they constitute a full regularly scheduled shift.
The Board also held that Article COR6.4, which disentitles employees to premiums for mutually agreed shift changes, applies to voluntary shift exchanges between employees but does not apply to Employer-assigned overtime.
Style of cause amended to add CUPE Local 443 as an intervenor.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board issued a brief decision amending the style of cause from its previous decision of May 4, 2001, to reflect the Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 443 as an intervenor.
City/Region found to be employer of paramedics; CUPE scope clause did not bar OPSEU certification.
The applicant union (OPSEU) applied for certification to represent paramedics.
The responding party (City/Region) claimed it was not the employer, asserting the Town of Ancaster was.
An intervenor union (CUPE) claimed the application was untimely because its existing collective agreement with the City/Region covered the paramedics.
The Board applied the York Condominium factors and found the City/Region was the employer at the time of the application, given its control over hiring, remuneration, and intention to create an employment relationship.
The Board also found that the scope clause of the CUPE collective agreement did not automatically include the new paramedic classifications, as the parties had not agreed to their inclusion, and therefore the clause did not bar OPSEU's certification application.
Monetary compensation, not an in-kind remedy, is required for missed overtime opportunities under voluntary distribution system.
The union filed a policy grievance regarding the appropriate remedy when a Correctional Officer is improperly denied an overtime assignment under the local overtime agreement at the Guelph Correctional Centre.
The employer argued for an in-kind remedy (a future overtime opportunity), while the union sought monetary compensation.
The Grievance Settlement Board held that because the local overtime distribution system was voluntary and not a true equalization system, an in-kind remedy would be impractical and inconsistent with the collective agreement.
The Board concluded that a monetary award is the appropriate remedy for the missed overtime opportunities.
Employer's motion to direct grievor to undergo a further independent medical assessment regarding dust sensitivity dismissed.
During the hearing of grievances regarding the Employer's alleged failure to accommodate the Grievor's asthma and sensitivity to second-hand smoke, the Employer brought a motion requesting that the Grievor be directed to participate in a further independent medical assessment regarding his sensitivity to dust.
The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the motion, finding that the Grievor had not requested accommodation for dust sensitivity, had not been absent due to dust exposure, and that the issue of dust sensitivity was not relevant to the grievances before the Board.
Board issues interim order binding parties to a protocol regarding paramedic and firefighter representation rights.
The applicant union brought an application under section 69 of the Labour Relations Act concerning paramedics formerly employed by various health services and hired by the City of Owen Sound.
The parties reached an Interim Protocol regarding the representation of paramedics and firefighters pending the Board's final determination on whether paramedics are considered firefighters under the Fire Protection and Prevention Act.
The Board directed that the parties are bound by the Interim Protocol, which includes provisions for separate bargaining units and a dispute resolution mechanism.
RFP for private operation of correctional facility must mandate recognition of OPS seniority for transferring employees.
The union filed a grievance alleging that a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the private operation of a new correctional facility did not adequately protect the seniority rights of transferring employees.
The Grievance Settlement Board held that article 6C.3.4 of the collective agreement mandates the recognition of Ontario Public Service (OPS) seniority by a receiving employer, even if they do not otherwise have a seniority system.
The Board further held that RFP employees must be able to assert their OPS seniority against non-RFP employees.
Finally, the Board concluded that the collective agreement precludes 'end-tailing' of RFP employees by a receiving employer bound by an existing collective agreement.
Employer directed to amend RFP to exclude certain food-service and intermittent-sentence employees from privatization transfer.
The union filed a policy grievance challenging the employer's inclusion and exclusion of certain employees in a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the operation of the new Central North Correctional Centre (CNCC).
The union argued that the employer violated the collective agreement by improperly identifying the jobs or functions attached to the services being transferred to the private sector.
The Grievance Settlement Board found that the employer acted arbitrarily in failing to exclude some food-service employees and employees working with inmates serving intermittent sentences, directing the employer to amend the RFP accordingly.
The remainder of the grievance regarding other employee classifications was dismissed.
Relocation cost reimbursement under collective agreement does not apply when work is simultaneously relocated and privatized.
The union filed a policy grievance concerning the impending opening of the Central North Correctional Centre and the government's intention to privatize its operation.
The issue was whether employees whose work is relocated to the new facility and simultaneously privatized are entitled to reimbursement for relocation costs under Appendix 13 of the collective agreement.
The arbitrator held that Appendix 13 applies only to the relocation of operations within the public service and does not apply when work is transferred to a private-sector employer.
The grievance was dismissed.
Affected correctional officers entitled to positions at receiving jails based on seniority following jail closures.
The union filed a grievance alleging the employer violated the redeployment provisions of the collective agreement when it closed three jails and transferred inmates to other facilities.
In a prior decision, the board found that Appendix 13 applied to the closures.
In this remedy decision, the board found that the transfer of inmates resulted in an increase in full-time equivalent positions at the receiving jails.
The board declared that the affected correctional officers from the closing jails are entitled to be offered these positions on the basis of seniority.
Union granted restricted access to Data Room documents for grievance litigation subject to confidentiality conditions.
The union sought access to documentation in the Data Room referred to in the Request for Proposals for the Central North Correctional Centre.
The Grievance Settlement Board ordered that the union be granted access to review specific documents, including the classification system description, food services details, and performance frameworks.
The order stipulated that union counsel must maintain possession of all copies, destroy working copies at the close of the hearing, and use the documentation solely for the litigation of the grievance.
Motion to set aside representation vote dismissed; alleged unfair labour practices insufficient to overwhelm voters' critical faculties.
Following a declaration of a sale of a business and an intermingling of employees, a representation vote was held between two competing unions, Local 3264 and Local 774.
Local 3264 won the vote.
Local 774 brought a motion to set aside the results, alleging unfair labour practices by Local 3264 and the employer, including threats, misleading campaign literature, and destruction of campaign materials.
The Board dismissed the motion, finding that the allegations, even if true, were not sufficient to overwhelm the critical faculties of the reasonable voter and did not warrant the extraordinary remedy of a second representation vote.
Modifying clause in collective agreement applies only to severance; opt-out benefits strictly limited to listed items.
The union grieved that the employer violated Appendix 18 of the collective agreement by awarding requests for proposals to employers who did not recognize seniority rights for layoff and job competitions.
The parties sought an interpretation of sections 5.2 and 5.3.
The Grievance Settlement Board held that the modifying clause in section 5.3, 'to the extent that they are provided in the proponent's workplace,' applies only to severance and termination payments, meaning seniority for layoff and job competitions must be recognized.
However, regarding section 5.2, the Board held that employees opting out of the transfer are restricted to the specific benefits listed in that section and do not retain full rights under Article 20.2, such as applying for restricted competitions.
Board lacks jurisdiction under s. 69(6) to determine seniority rights following a sale of business.
Following a sale of a business and the intermingling of employees, a representation vote was held and Local 3264 was declared the successful bargaining agent.
Local 774 requested the Board to determine which collective agreement should apply and to determine the relative seniority of the employees now represented by Local 3264.
The Board held that under section 69(6) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, it lacks the jurisdiction to determine seniority rights.
The Board further held that the scheme of section 69 anticipates that the collective agreement of the successful trade union applies to the entire bargaining unit.
The Board declared that the predecessor collective agreement no longer bound the employer and amended the successful union's bargaining unit description accordingly.
Board confirms representation vote results and declares Local 3264 the bargaining agent following a sale of business.
Following a declaration of a sale of a business and an intermingling of employees, a representation vote was held between two competing union locals.
Local 774 sought to set aside the vote results, alleging unfair labour practices by Local 3264 and the employer.
The Board ruled that the appropriate bargaining unit had already been finally determined by prior agreement and decision.
The Board also dismissed Local 774's motion, finding no prima facie case that the vote did not represent the true wishes of the employees, and confirmed Local 3264 as the bargaining agent.
A hearing was scheduled for remaining issues.
Discipline proceedings for alleged student abuse stayed on conditions including member's resignation and surrender of certificates.
The Ontario College of Teachers brought discipline proceedings against a member for alleged physical abuse of deaf students.
The member brought a motion to stay the proceedings, arguing delay and procedural unfairness.
The parties subsequently reached an agreement.
The Discipline Committee ordered the proceedings stayed on conditions, including that the member resign his membership, surrender his teaching certificates, and undertake not to teach in Ontario.
Employer not required to convert temporary unclassified positions to permanent bargaining unit positions before two-year mark.
The Union filed a policy grievance alleging that the Employer violated the collective agreement by failing to designate newly created Government Information Centre (GIC) positions as permanent bargaining unit positions.
The Union argued that the Employer's delay in classifying these positions denied surplussed employees the right to bump into them and prevented bargaining unit members from applying for them.
The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the preliminary issue, finding that under article 31 of the collective agreement, the Employer has the right to wait up to two years before converting unclassified positions to classified ones, absent bad faith.
The Board also noted practical reasons for the delay, including unresolved funding and classification issues.
Grievor awarded reimbursement for educational expenses and interest on dental bills incurred during termination.
Following the grievor's reinstatement to his position as a social worker, the parties disputed his entitlement to interest on dental bills and reimbursement for computer course expenses incurred during his termination.
The Grievance Settlement Board held that the interest on dental bills was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the breach.
The Board also found that the educational expenses were reasonable and incurred pursuant to the grievor's obligation to mitigate his losses, as he successfully utilized the acquired skills to obtain employment.
The grievor was awarded reimbursement for both expenses.
Proceedings adjourned on consent to allow parties to negotiate a collective agreement.
The parties requested an adjournment of the proceedings to attempt to negotiate a collective agreement in light of changed circumstances.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the request, adjourning the scheduled dates in September and October, while maintaining the December dates.
