David Wynne Wright

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The union filed grievances on behalf of six employees whose jobs became surplus following the reorganization of social assistance programs.

The employer raised four preliminary objections: that the grievances were barred by a prior memorandum of agreement, that the health and safety claims were barred by a prior union grievance settlement, that the Board lacked jurisdiction to review management's workload decisions absent improper motive, and that the grievors lacked standing to challenge other employees' workloads.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that the memorandum of agreement barred claims under article 20 but not article 6, and dismissed the remaining three preliminary objections, allowing the grievances to proceed.

The applicant union referred a matter to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act and the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

Following an initial hearing, the parties agreed to attempt to develop member profiles.

The Board issued an interim order authorizing the responding party to release health care information if an agreement on member profiles is reached, and adjourned the matter to a later date.

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.

The parties agreed to minutes of settlement resolving a dispute over the review and transfer of employee personnel files.

The settlement established a process for employees to review their files with human resources staff and request the removal of documentation relating to union and discretionary leaves prior to the file being transferred to a new employer.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued a consent award incorporating the terms of the settlement.

The applicant employer sought to have two part-time nursing supervisor positions included in the new nursing bargaining unit represented by the respondent union, with full recognition for their service and seniority under s. 33(3) of the Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act, 1997.

The respondent union argued that the bargaining unit configuration had already been settled by a prior Board decision and Minutes of Settlement, and these employees were not included.

The Board agreed with the union, finding that s. 33(3) applies to an 'employee in the bargaining unit,' and it was not appropriate to decide status disputes under this section after the bargaining unit configuration had been decided.

The application was dismissed.

The Minister of Labour referred questions to the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding whether the employer is a 'hospital' under the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act and whether the Minister can rescind a 'no board' notice.

The Board adjourned the proceedings to allow the parties to focus on bargaining their first collective agreement, noting that litigation would negatively impact negotiations.

The matter was rescheduled, and the parties were directed to meet and bargain in good faith.