Ed Holmes

The Union filed grievances on behalf of several employees regarding their requests for the Transition Exit Initiative (TEI) under Appendix 46 of the Collective Agreement.

The parties confirmed that all grievors had already been granted and received TEI before exiting the Ontario Public Service.

In light of earlier awards regarding the operation of Appendix 46, the arbitrator dismissed the grievances.

Twenty-five grievors filed grievances after their applications for the Transition Exit Initiative (TEI) were denied by the Employer prior to their retirement from the Ontario Public Service.

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

Finding that the Employer properly exercised its discretion in considering the grievors' requests, the Arbitrator dismissed the grievances.

Eight grievors in various positions in the Ministry of the Attorney General filed grievances after their applications for the Transition Exit Initiative (TEI) were denied prior to their retirement.

The parties submitted an Agreed Statement of Facts.

The arbitrator applied principles established in earlier cases, confirming the Employer has 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.

Five Youth Services Officers grieved the timing of their approved Transition Exit Initiative (TEI) applications, alleging they delayed applying due to misinformation or lack of clarity from the Employer regarding exit dates and bridging to unreduced pensions.

The Union argued this constituted arbitrary, bad faith, and discriminatory decision-making.

The Arbitrator dismissed the grievances, finding no deliberate attempt to mislead the grievors and noting that the inherent uncertainty of the TEI program's exit date negotiation meant the grievors' decisions to delay applying until they were eligible for full pensions would likely have remained the same even with better information.

Nineteen grievors employed by the Ministry of the Attorney General filed grievances alleging that the Employer improperly denied their applications for the Transition Exit Initiative (TEI) under Appendix 46 of the Collective Agreement.

The Employer maintained that the grievors' positions continued to be required and their exits would not support the transformation of the Ontario Public Service.

Applying principles established in prior awards, the Arbitrator found that the Employer retained broad discretion to approve or deny TEI requests and had properly exercised its discretion based on relevant considerations.

The grievances were dismissed.

Three Probation Officers filed grievances after the Employer denied their applications for the Transition Exit Initiative (TEI) prior to their retirements.

The Union argued the Employer's decision was arbitrary, discriminatory, and in bad faith, given the diminishing caseloads and the approval of other TEI requests before and after the grievors' applications.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievances, finding that the Employer retained broad discretion to determine when and whether to downsize the workforce, and that its cautious approach to staffing reductions was rational and not made in bad faith.

The Union filed grievances claiming the Employer violated the collective agreement regarding meal allowance and overtime provisions for employees at Maplehurst Correctional Centre.

The parties agreed to proceed on the single issue of whether employees assigned to escort duty who work through their unpaid meal break are entitled to straight time or overtime pay.

The Arbitrator found that employees are entitled to the overtime rate for the normally unpaid meal break time, in addition to the one-hour compensation for the missed meal break, as any time worked over scheduled hours is overtime.

The grievances were granted and the Employer was directed to pay the applicable overtime rate.

In the context of nine discipline grievances filed on behalf of five Youth Services Officers, the Arbitrator issued a procedural direction regarding the production of documents, videos, and photographs by the Employer.

The direction imposed strict confidentiality conditions, prohibiting dissemination or use outside the arbitration process, and restricting copying and retention of the materials.

The Arbitrator issued case management directions in a grievance arbitration between the union and the employer.

The directions established a schedule for the exchange of production and particulars regarding issues of discipline, abandonment, harassment, discrimination, and screening out, as well as a deadline for the employer to provide notice of any preliminary issues.

The Union sought to retract its withdrawal of a grievance concerning escort training for Correctional Officers.

The local Union President had signed a withdrawal form after being informed by the Employer that training was up to date, but quickly realized he lacked full knowledge of the grievance's scope and historical context.

The Employer argued the withdrawal was binding.

The Arbitrator held that while withdrawn grievances generally cannot be revived, an exception exists for inadvertence or mistake.

Finding that the local President made an inadvertent error and immediately communicated it without causing detriment to the Employer, the Arbitrator rescinded the withdrawal and relisted the matter for hearing.

The arbitrator reviewed the parties' compliance with directions set out in a previous order dated September 25, 2020.

The employer confirmed payments related to Walkerton and Windsor were effected or in process, and advised that requested documents dating back 13 to 17 years were no longer available.

The union complied with directions regarding payment dates.

The arbitrator noted the union made every reasonable effort to secure information for allocating settlement funds and must now proceed with the limited information available.

The arbitrator remained seized of any implementation difficulties.

The union grieved a one-day suspension imposed on the grievor for alleged misconduct in the execution of their duties.

The matter proceeded as a mediation/arbitration pursuant to the collective agreement.

The arbitrator determined that the imposition of discipline was not warranted in the circumstances.

The grievance was allowed and the letter of suspension was ordered rescinded, with no further compensation awarded.

The Union filed grievances alleging the Employer violated the collective agreement and Compressed Work Week Agreements by requiring correctional officers to attend mandatory training on their regular days off (RDOs) and paying them at straight time rates.

The Arbitrator found that mandatory training constitutes work time.

The Employer breached the collective agreement by failing to provide two consecutive days off and by failing to pay overtime rates for work performed on scheduled days off.

The grievances were upheld, and the Employer was directed to compensate affected employees.

The Grievor failed to provide particulars by the deadline directed in a previous Board decision and did not communicate with the Board.

As a result, the grievances were dismissed.

The union sought an adjournment of a scheduled videoconference hearing after the grievor failed to attend.

The employer agreed to the adjournment but requested conditions, specifically that the grievor provide a written explanation for her absence, failing which the grievances should be dismissed.

The arbitrator ordered the grievor to provide written particulars explaining her non-attendance and failure to give notice, after which the employer could renew its motion for dismissal.

The Employer requested that the grievances be dismissed due to the grievor's refusal to participate in the rehearing of her case before the Grievance Settlement Board.

The original arbitrator became unable to continue, necessitating a rehearing.

The grievor failed to respond to scheduling requests and indicated she was pursuing a related application at the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario instead.

The arbitrator found that allowing the matter to continue in the face of the grievor's ongoing refusal to participate would be an abuse of process and dismissed the grievances.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued a consent order directing the employer to make payments owing under the parties' agreements in respect of the Windsor and Walkerton Jails.

The employer was also directed to advise the union regarding the existence and production of quarterly reports for several other correctional institutions, and to provide information on unpaid or uncashed payments for specific detention centres.

The union reserved the right to seek general damages in the event of non-compliance.

The Grievance Settlement Board held a case management session regarding consolidated grievances over the use of surveillance cameras at correctional facilities.

The Arbitrator issued procedural directions, including the selection of reference grievances, the use of written declarations in lieu of oral evidence in chief, timelines for filing declarations, and limits on oral evidence and cross-examination.

The Union brought a motion to consolidate ten grievances filed by the grievor between 2017 and 2019.

The Employer agreed to consolidate the 2017 and 2019 grievances but objected to including the 2018 grievance, arguing it involved a discrete issue concerning a leave request made to a different manager.

The Arbitrator granted the motion to consolidate all ten grievances, finding that the 2018 grievance alleged discriminatory treatment, which was also raised in the 2019 grievances.

The Arbitrator concluded that hearing the 2018 grievance separately would prejudice the grievor, be inefficient, and risk inconsistent decisions.

Following a prior decision, the Arbitrator convened a conference call to address the status of the grievance.

The parties were encouraged to pursue settlement discussions.

The Union was directed to confirm within 14 days whether the grievance would be withdrawn, failing which a further conference call would be convened to hear submissions on the employer's request to dismiss the grievance.