Ed Holmes

The Arbitrator was appointed to hear 14 grievances between the union and the employer.

Following submissions from the parties on how the matter would be adjudicated, the Arbitrator issued procedural directions under article 22.16 of the collective agreement.

The union's filings were deemed complete, and the employer was directed to reply by a specified date.

The Arbitrator indicated that further explanation or oral submissions would be requested for specific grievances if necessary, while others would be decided on the written materials.

The Union filed a grievance alleging the Employer violated the collective agreement by contracting outside agencies to perform bargaining unit work of Correctional Officers for K-9 handler duties.

During case management, the Union sought to introduce the Correctional Services Division Canine Program and Procedures Manual.

The Arbitrator ruled that the Manual is relevant and may be disclosed, subject to strict confidentiality conditions limiting its use solely to the arbitration proceedings and requiring its destruction or return upon conclusion.

The matter was adjourned sine die.

The Union filed grievances on behalf of 29 employees who were denied enhanced benefits under the Transition Exit Initiative (TEI) before retiring from the Ontario Public Service.

The Arbitrator applied principles established in earlier cases, confirming that the Employer has broad discretion to determine whether granting a TEI request supports the transformation of the public service.

Finding no improper exercise of discretion, the Arbitrator dismissed the grievances.

The Employer brought a motion to dismiss several of the 26 grievances filed by the Union on behalf of the grievor.

The Employer argued that the grievances should be dismissed on various preliminary grounds, including timeliness, failure to disclose a prima facie case, mootness, and prior settlement.

The Arbitrator reviewed each grievance individually, striking certain untimely or insufficient particulars, dismissing several grievances entirely for failing to establish a prima facie case, and allowing others to proceed where the particulars sufficiently alleged harassment, discrimination, or a failure to accommodate.

The Union filed a series of grievances on behalf of several employees who 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 an employee's exit supports the transformation of the public service.

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

Three grievors applied for enhanced retirement benefits under the Transition Exit Initiative (TEI) prior to their retirement from the Ontario Public Service.

The Employer denied their applications, determining that their exits did not support the transformation of the OPS as their positions were still required.

The Union grieved, alleging an improper exercise of discretion.

The Arbitrator dismissed the grievances, finding that the Employer has broad discretion to determine whether an exit supports transformation, and the evidence did not establish that the Employer's decisions were unreasonable, arbitrary, or made in bad faith.

Four grievors filed grievances after the Employer denied their requests to receive enhanced benefits under the Transition Exit Initiative (TEI) pursuant to Appendix 46 of the Collective Agreement.

The Arbitrator applied established principles from prior decisions, confirming that the Employer retains broad discretion to determine whether an employee's exit supports the transformation of the Ontario Public Service.

Finding no improper exercise of discretion, the Arbitrator dismissed the grievances.

The Union filed grievances on behalf of two employees whose requests for the Transition Exit Initiative (TEI) were denied by the Employer before they retired.

The Union argued that the subsequent reclassification of one grievor's position and an error on the other grievor's Record of Employment demonstrated bad faith or an improper exercise of discretion.

The Arbitrator dismissed the grievances, finding that neither the subsequent reclassification of a position nor an erroneous statement in a Record of Employment established an improper exercise of the Employer's broad discretion to approve or deny TEI requests.

The grievor alleged that the employer improperly withheld more than the allowable amount from his pay under a garnishee order for family responsibility payments.

The employer provided records demonstrating that the amounts withheld did not exceed the maximum allowable deduction permitted by law, and the union presented no evidence to the contrary.

The arbitrator found that the employer correctly calculated the amounts to be withheld and dismissed the grievance.

The Union filed grievances regarding the eligibility of Correctional Officers for meal allowances while escorting inmates in the community.

The parties agreed to submit four questions to the Arbitrator to establish a framework for resolving the grievances.

The Arbitrator determined that day and night shifts should be treated the same, employees must purchase a meal and travel beyond 24 kilometres to be eligible, and employees are entitled to one meal allowance for an eight-hour shift and two meal allowances for a twelve-hour shift.

The union filed grievances on behalf of two employees alleging that the employer improperly exercised its discretion regarding their applications for the Transition Exit Initiative (TEI).

One grievor alleged that the employer misrepresented the availability of salary continuance after age 65, depriving him of an earlier opportunity to apply, and discriminated against him based on age.

The other grievor alleged that her TEI request was not approved in a timely manner.

The arbitrator found that the employer's information regarding salary continuance was likely misunderstood rather than misrepresented, and noted that no similarly situated employees were approved before the first grievor retired.

The arbitrator also held that the employer was not obligated to respond to a TEI application within a specific timeframe.

The arbitrator concluded that the employer properly exercised its broad discretion under the collective agreement and dismissed the grievances.

The Union filed grievances on behalf of eight employees in the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry whose applications for the Transition Exit Initiative (TEI) were denied by the Employer before they retired.

The arbitrator applied principles established in earlier cases regarding the Employer's broad discretion under Appendix 46 of the Collective Agreement to determine whether granting a TEI request supports the transformation of the Ontario Public Service.

The arbitrator found that the Employer properly exercised its discretion in considering the grievors' requests and dismissed the grievances.

Six grievors in the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry filed grievances after their applications for the Transition Exit Initiative (TEI) were denied by the Employer prior to their retirement.

The arbitrator applied established principles regarding the Employer's broad discretion under Appendix 46 of the Collective Agreement to determine whether granting a TEI request supports the transformation of the Ontario Public Service.

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

The union alleged the employer breached a 2003 settlement agreement requiring weekly courier delivery of job postings to the grievor.

The arbitrator found the employer had a 96.5% to 99.5% compliance rate over 19 years, delivering approximately 1,000 packages.

The grievor, who has been on long-term disability for nearly 20 years, failed to identify any jobs she would have applied for or any harm suffered from the alleged delivery failures.

The arbitrator dismissed the claims, finding no labour relations purpose in allowing the complaint to proceed, and imposed strict pleading requirements for any future complaints.

Three grievors applied for the Transition Exit Initiative (TEI) before retiring from the Ontario Public Service, but their requests were denied by the Employer.

The Union grieved the denials, arguing the Employer improperly exercised its discretion under Appendix 46 of the Collective Agreement.

The Arbitrator applied established principles from prior TEI decisions, confirming the Employer retains broad discretion to determine whether an employee's exit supports the transformation of the public service.

Finding no improper exercise of discretion, the grievances were dismissed.

The employer brought preliminary motions to dismiss two grievances for failing to disclose a prima facie case and to strike certain particulars in a consolidated grievance arbitration.

The arbitrator granted the motion to dismiss the two grievances, finding that the employer's request to waive stage 2 grievance meetings and its issuance of a letter of expectation to a co-worker did not, even if true, constitute a violation of the grievor's rights.

The arbitrator dismissed the employer's motion to strike particulars relating to a co-worker's workplace harassment complaint, finding them arguably relevant to the grievor's claim of differential treatment, and ordered production of the file.

The arbitrator partially granted the motion to strike other particulars for vagueness.

The Employer brought preliminary objections to group grievances filed by probation and parole officers regarding the use of a Case Management Review (CMR) process.

The Employer argued the grievances were untimely, lacked particulars, and failed to establish a prima facie case.

The Arbitrator found that the grievances alleged a continuing breach but required specific particulars to assess timeliness.

The Falconi, Cole, and Pereira grievances were dismissed for want of particulars or being untimely.

The Bonacci grievance was permitted to proceed regarding events surrounding an April 3, 2017 CMR, as it was timely and established a prima facie case.

The Union filed a grievance challenging the Employer's use of surveillance cameras to monitor the performance of correctional officers, alleging it breached Appendix COR10 of the collective agreement.

The Arbitrator found that the Employer's use of surveillance video to investigate serious incidents and incidentally discovering unrelated misconduct did not violate the agreement.

However, the Arbitrator ruled that live monitoring of an officer during a Code Blue and conducting spot checks of surveillance video to ensure compliance with shift changeover procedures breached the collective agreement, as the Employer failed to establish the reasonable necessity of these privacy intrusions.

In a grievance arbitration involving multiple related grievances filed by an employee at the Ontario Correctional Institute, the Grievance Settlement Board issued a case management order.

The Board ordered the union and the employer to provide each other with full written particulars of the material facts and copies of all relevant documents in their possession, establishing a timetable for the exchange and for raising any preliminary motions.

Forty-seven grievors filed grievances after the Employer denied their applications for the Transition Exit Initiative (TEI) before they retired from the Ontario Public Service.

The Union argued that the Employer improperly exercised its discretion and that changes to the retiree benefit plan were a deliberate effort to induce mass retirements and circumvent the TEI process.

The Arbitrator dismissed the grievances, finding no factual foundation to support the argument that the Employer acted in bad faith, unreasonably, arbitrarily, or in a discriminatory manner, and concluded that the Employer properly exercised its discretion in denying the TEI requests.