D. Wright

The union filed grievances alleging sexual harassment by a managerial employee and sought his termination or transfer as a remedy.

The employer and the manager raised preliminary objections, arguing that the facts did not disclose a prima facie case of sexual harassment and that the Grievance Settlement Board lacked jurisdiction to order the discipline or discharge of a managerial employee.

The Board dismissed the manager's motion, finding a prima facie case was established.

The Board also held that it possesses the remedial jurisdiction to direct the termination or transfer of a manager in exceptional cases where absolutely necessary to effect a remedy.

However, the Board concluded that termination was not absolutely necessary in this case, though alternative remedies such as transfer or removal of supervisory powers might be appropriate.

The union filed a grievance alleging the employer violated the collective agreement by failing to use reasonable 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 they had a significant financial interest in the outcome.

The arbitrator denied the applications for standing, finding that the hospitals' financial interest was analogous to that of a commercial contractor and did not confer a legal entitlement to participate in the hearing, as they asserted no legal claim conflicting with the union's grievance under labour law.

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.

The grievor, a manager, filed a grievance alleging that the employer breached a longstanding policy that managers should not make less than the people they supervise, resulting in a salary inversion.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the grievance for lack of jurisdiction, arguing that the Board has no power to alter salary ranges set by Cabinet.

The Board dismissed the employer's motion, finding that it has jurisdiction to hear complaints alleging a breach of working conditions or terms of employment, including allegations that an existing policy regarding salary compression was violated.

The Ontario Public Service Employees Union (OPSEU) brought applications alleging that contracts between the Ministry of Correctional Services and various community agencies constituted a transfer of part of the Crown's undertaking under the Successor Rights (Crown Transfers) Act.

The agencies provided specialized counselling and discharge planning services to inmates.

The Board dismissed the applications, finding that the agencies were using their own independent undertakings to supply services to the Crown and had not acquired any part of the Crown's undertaking.

The performance of similar work by the agencies did not amount to a transfer of an undertaking.