Ed Holmes

The Grievor, a former Union steward on long-term disability, grieved the Employer's denial of his request for the Transition Exit Initiative (TEI) prior to his retirement.

The Union argued the denial was unfair and motivated by his union activity.

The Arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding no evidence of bad faith or discrimination.

Applying previous jurisprudence, the Arbitrator held that the Employer properly exercised its broad discretion under Appendix 46 of the Collective Agreement, as the Grievor no longer occupied a home position from which he could exit to support the transformation of the public service.

The Grievor, a Corridor Management Planner with 31 years of service, applied for enhanced benefits under the Transition Exit Initiative (TEI) prior to her retirement.

The Employer denied the request, maintaining that her position was still required and that granting TEI would not support the transformation of the Ontario Public Service.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the Employer properly exercised its broad discretion under Appendix 46 of the Collective Agreement and that the case was indistinguishable from previous decisions upholding the Employer's discretion to deny TEI requests.

The Grievor, a Probation and Parole Officer with 33 years of service, applied for enhanced benefits under the Transition Exit Initiative (TEI) prior to his retirement.

His application was not approved, and he filed a grievance challenging the fairness of the Employer's decision-making process.

The Arbitrator found that the Employer properly exercised its broad discretion under Appendix 46 of the Collective Agreement, noting that TEI is not a general retirement allowance and the Employer is not required to approve all requests.

The grievance was dismissed.

The Union grieved the Employer's decision to deny the grievor's application for the Transition Exit Initiative (TEI) prior to his retirement.

The grievor argued the Employer's decision-making process was unfair and relied on assurances that best efforts would be made to approve requests supporting organizational transformation.

The Arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that the Employer properly exercised its broad discretion under Appendix 46 of the Collective Agreement.

The Arbitrator noted that a TEI application does not survive an employee's departure from the public service and that the approval of another employee's request after the grievor's retirement did not establish improper conduct.

The grievor, a correctional officer, was terminated for allegedly watching a female inmate masturbate while on constant watch and making inappropriate comments, as well as for sending an insubordinate email to his manager regarding a payroll error.

The arbitrator found the employer failed to prove the allegations of sexual misconduct, noting the investigation was flawed and the video evidence corroborated the grievor's version of events.

However, the arbitrator found the grievor's email was insubordinate and warranted discipline.

The grievance was upheld, the termination was set aside, and a 3-day suspension was substituted for the insubordination.

The grievor was reinstated with full compensation.

The parties appeared before the Grievance Settlement Board regarding two grievances.

On consent, the Union withdrew one grievance on a without prejudice basis.

The parties agreed to adjourn the scheduled hearing date and to hear the remaining grievance, along with two other grievances filed by the grievor, on a future date pursuant to the expedited procedure in Article 22.16 of the Collective Agreement.

The Union filed grievances on behalf of two Correctional Officers with medical restrictions, alleging the Employer breached its duty to accommodate by bypassing them for overtime opportunities on the night shift.

The Union argued the Employer should have accommodated the grievors by assigning them on an over-complement basis or by bundling duties to create viable overtime shifts.

The Arbitrator dismissed the grievances, finding that the Employer properly applied the Provincial Overtime Protocol, which included a mechanism for switching assignments to accommodate restrictions.

The Arbitrator held that the duty to accommodate does not require an employer to assign unproductive work or to create above-complement positions, particularly at premium overtime rates.

The Union filed multiple grievances on behalf of employees who applied for but were not approved to receive enhanced benefits under the Transition Exit Initiative (TEI) pursuant to Appendix 46 of the Collective Agreement.

The arbitrator applied principles established in earlier cases, confirming that the Employer retains broad discretion to determine whether granting a TEI request supports the transformation of the Ontario Public Service.

Finding no improper exercise of discretion, the arbitrator dismissed all the grievances.

The Union filed grievances on behalf of several employees who were denied enhanced benefits under the Transition Exit Initiative (TEI).

The Arbitrator applied principles established in earlier decisions, confirming that the Employer has broad discretion to approve or deny TEI requests based on whether the exit supports the transformation of the Ontario Public Service.

Finding no improper exercise of discretion, bad faith, or discrimination, the Arbitrator dismissed the grievances.

The employer brought a motion arguing that the Grievance Settlement Board lacked jurisdiction to award compensatory damages to the grievor for workplace harassment and a poisoned work environment, asserting that the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) had exclusive jurisdiction.

The arbitrator dismissed the motion, finding that the employer's actions and inactions fell within the 'employment function bar' under s. 13(5) of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997.

Because the WSIB had already denied benefits for the ongoing harassment on this basis, the claims were not compensable under the WSIA, leaving the GSB with jurisdiction to award damages for breaches of the collective agreement and the implied duty of care.

The Grievor, a registered nurse at a detention centre, was assaulted by an inmate while conducting an intake assessment alone, contrary to institutional policy requiring a correctional officer to be present.

The Union grieved that the Employer failed to ensure her health and safety by not preventing the assault, delaying her transport to the hospital, and allowing her to drive home alone afterwards.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that the assault resulted from the Grievor's own decision to proceed without a correctional officer, that the delay in hospital transport was due to her choice to wait for police, and that the Employer acted reasonably regarding her transportation home.

During a grievance arbitration involving multiple grievances, one grievor failed to attend the first two hearing dates without explanation.

The employer moved to dismiss his grievances.

The arbitrator declined to dismiss the grievances immediately, finding it would be unfair without giving the grievor an opportunity to explain his absence.

The arbitrator ordered that the grievor has two weeks to provide an explanation to the union, failing which his grievances will be deemed abandoned or dismissed.

Following a finding that the Employer failed to comply with the procedural requirements of a Memorandum of Settlement during an investigation into alleged use of force, the Union sought damages for loss of earnings, general damages, and violation damages.

The Arbitrator held that the Board lacked jurisdiction to award loss of earnings or general damages because, even if the proper procedure had been followed, the grievors would have been suspended and suffered the same losses.

The Arbitrator declined to award violation damages, noting the breach was inadvertent, there was no bad faith, and there was no need for deterrence.

The Union filed grievances on behalf of several employees who applied for enhanced benefits under the Transition Exit Initiative (TEI) before retiring from the Ontario Public Service.

The Arbitrator applied established principles regarding the Employer's broad discretion to approve or deny TEI requests based on whether an employee's exit supports the transformation of the public service.

Finding no material facts to distinguish these grievances from previously dismissed cases, the Arbitrator concluded the Employer properly exercised its discretion and dismissed the grievances.

The Union filed grievances on behalf of several employees who applied for but were denied enhanced benefits under the Transition Exit Initiative (TEI) before retiring from the Ontario Public Service.

The arbitrator applied established principles regarding the Employer's broad discretion to approve or deny TEI requests based on whether the exit supports the transformation of the public service.

The arbitrator found that the Employer properly exercised its discretion in all cases, including those where the Union alleged junior employees were granted TEI, noting that in some instances the junior employees were in different positions or classifications.

The grievances were dismissed.

The union filed grievances on behalf of two employees regarding the application of a lump sum payment provision in the collective agreement.

One grievor retired before the qualifying date of January 1, 2016, and the other was on maternity leave during the calculation period, receiving EI but no employer pay.

The arbitrator dismissed both grievances, finding the retired employee did not meet the clear membership date requirement.

For the employee on maternity leave, the arbitrator accepted the employer's interpretation that the payment was calculated only on base salary earnings paid by the employer, and found no Code-based discrimination.

The grievor failed to attend the scheduled continuation of his examination-in-chief at the grievance arbitration hearing.

The union was unable to contact the grievor or provide an explanation for his absence, despite having sent a timely reminder.

The parties agreed to adjourn the hearing.

The arbitrator directed that the grievor be provided an opportunity to explain his absence at the next scheduled hearing date, warning that future unexplained absences could result in the dismissal of the grievances.

The Union brought a motion seeking directions on whether a December 2018 memo from the Secretary of Cabinet fundamentally changed the operation of the Transition Exit Initiative (TEI) under Appendix 46 of the Collective Agreement.

The Union argued the memo supported a more permissive approach to granting TEI applications, particularly for correctional officers.

The Arbitrator found that the memo merely expanded the program to previously excluded employees and did not alter the broad discretion of the Employer to approve applications based on its vision of transformation.

The motion was dismissed, and the parties were directed to proceed with the remaining grievances under the previously established principles.

The parties appeared before the Grievance Settlement Board regarding a dispute over the installation and use of security cameras in correctional facility control modules, following a prior 2021 decision.

The Union sought to have cameras moved or their fields of vision altered, and indicated its intention to file a fresh grievance on the issue.

On consent of the parties, the Arbitrator adjourned the proceedings sine die to allow for the processing and consolidation of the new grievance.

The union requested an adjournment of the grievance arbitration pending the outcome of a related complaint filed by the grievor at the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO).

The union argued that the relationship between it and the grievor was broken, making it impossible to effectively represent him.

The arbitrator denied the adjournment, noting that the arbitration was well-advanced compared to the HRTO proceedings and that it is not the Board's function to monitor or repair relations between a union and its members.