97 total
Board amends previous scheduling order to correct file references and hearing allocations.
The Grievance Settlement Board issued an order amending a previous scheduling order dated April 19, 2004.
Following correspondence from union counsel advising that one of the grievances had been settled, the Board corrected the file references and reallocated the remaining grievances into two separate sets of hearings scheduled for October, November, and December 2004.
Grievance for call-back pay dismissed as Schedule 6 IT specialists did not work a scheduled shift.
The Union grieved that five System Services Specialists (Schedule 6 employees) were entitled to call-back pay under the collective agreement when called back to work following their afternoon rotation.
The Employer argued that Schedule 6 employees are not entitled to premium overtime pay and that the grievors do not work a 'scheduled shift' due to the flexible and unpredictable nature of their hours.
The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that while Schedule 6 status does not automatically preclude call-back pay, the grievors' work lacked a specified time of work starting and ending on set times on a regular basis, meaning they did not have a 'next scheduled shift' within the meaning of the call-back provision.
Employer's preliminary objection on timeliness dismissed; standard thirty-day grievance time limit applied to job offer dispute.
The employer raised a preliminary objection that the union's grievance concerning the transfer of operations to a new agency was untimely.
The employer argued that the seven-day time limit under article 8.3 of the collective agreement applied.
The union contended that the standard thirty-day time limit under article 22.13.1 applied because the dispute concerned the application of the agreement to job offers, not the transfer agreement itself.
The arbitrator held that article 8.3 did not apply to disputes about the quality of job offers under articles 6.5 and 6.6.
The preliminary objection was dismissed as the grievance was filed within the thirty-day limit.
Grievances over denied lunch expense claims dismissed; employer's requirement for explanations for amounts exceeding $9.25 was not arbitrary.
The grievor, a tax auditor, submitted expense claims for lunches exceeding the employer's $9.25 unreceipted maximum.
The employer reimbursed $9.25 for each meal and denied the excess, citing a lack of extenuating circumstances or explanations from the grievor.
The union grieved, arguing the employer's requirement for explanations for any amount over $9.25 was an arbitrary exercise of management discretion under the collective agreement.
The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievances, finding that the employer did not act arbitrarily.
The employer was entitled to rely on its knowledge that reasonable meals could be purchased for $9.25 or less in the relevant localities, especially since the grievor failed to provide any explanations for the higher costs when submitting his claims.
Union's request for production of documents regarding other employees' work hours dismissed for irrelevance.
The union sought production of documents relating to the adjustment of work hours for other employees, arguing it was relevant to the grievor's claim of failure to accommodate a disability.
The arbitrator dismissed the request, finding the information irrelevant as the employer did not claim undue hardship but rather disputed the existence of a disability and the provision of medical information.
The arbitrator also ordered the union to provide written particulars of any acts or omissions relied upon to demonstrate discriminatory motivation or effect.
Grievances over employer's refusal to reimburse tax auditors' professional dues dismissed as inarbitrable.
More than 100 tax auditors grieved the employer's refusal to reimburse their professional membership dues (CGA, CA, CMA).
The union argued that under a government-wide policy, the employer was required to reimburse the dues because the memberships were beneficial to the ministry, and that the refusal was an unreasonable exercise of management rights.
The Grievance Settlement Board held that the grievances were not arbitrable because the collective agreement was silent on the reimbursement of professional dues, and the employer's policy did not constitute an undertaking that created enforceable rights under the agreement.
In the alternative, the Board found that the union failed to prove that the employer's decision not to reimburse the dues was unreasonable, as there was insufficient evidence that maintaining the memberships provided a benefit to the ministry that outweighed the cost of reimbursement.
The grievances were dismissed.
Motion to consolidate policy grievance with group grievance granted due to common questions of law and fact.
The Union moved to consolidate a policy grievance filed in August 2003 with an earlier group grievance filed in May 2001.
The group grievance claimed that court reporters were forced to perform authorized duties on overtime hours without overtime pay.
The policy grievance sought a declaration that the preparation and certification of transcripts is bargaining unit work.
The Employer opposed the motion, arguing the grievances were different.
The Grievance Settlement Board granted the motion to consolidate, finding that both grievances raised common questions of law and fact regarding whether the preparation of transcripts constitutes bargaining unit work subject to the collective agreement's overtime provisions.
Extrinsic evidence ruled admissible to resolve latent ambiguity in memorandum of understanding regarding water bomber pilots.
In an interim decision regarding the admissibility of extrinsic evidence, the Union sought to introduce evidence to interpret various agreements governing CL-215 water bomber pilots, specifically the 1995 Memorandum of Understanding.
The Employer argued the agreements were clear and unambiguous, precluding extrinsic evidence.
The Grievance Settlement Board found that the 1995 MOU's silence on what agreement applied to the CL-215 pilots created a potential ambiguity or mistake.
Applying the principles of contract interpretation and the parol evidence rule, the Board ruled that extrinsic evidence was admissible to aid in interpreting the 1995 MOU and the term 'irregular hours', but not for the 1991 Minute of Understanding, which was found to be unambiguous.
Employer's preliminary objection on timeliness dismissed; grievance regarding ongoing failure to pay overtime is a continuing grievance.
The employer raised a preliminary objection regarding the timeliness of a group grievance filed by court reporters alleging they were forced to perform authorized duties on overtime hours without overtime pay.
The employer argued the grievance was untimely because the change in practice occurred years ago.
The union argued it was a continuing grievance.
The Grievance Settlement Board found that the grievance alleged an ongoing failure to comply with the overtime requirements of the collective agreement, rather than a single transaction.
The Board concluded the grievance was a continuing grievance and therefore timely, dismissing the employer's preliminary objection.
Arbitrator issues comprehensive order for particulars and document production in professional dues reimbursement grievance.
The union grieved the employer's refusal to reimburse tax auditors for professional membership dues (CA, CMA, CGA).
During the arbitration proceedings, both parties complained about the other's approach to particulars and document production.
The Vice-Chair issued a comprehensive order requiring both parties to deliver written particulars and produce relevant documents.
The Vice-Chair also directed the employer to bring documents regarding the reimbursement of membership dues for employees in other ministries to the next hearing, deferring a final decision on their production.
Union ordered to provide particulars and employer directed to produce documents regarding professional dues reimbursement.
The union filed grievances regarding the employer's policy on reimbursement of professional dues.
At a hearing, the Grievance Settlement Board ordered the union to provide particulars of its allegations, including claims that the employer benefits from the grievors' professional designations and that the employer acted arbitrarily or in bad faith.
The Board also directed the employer to make reasonable efforts to produce documents related to a 'Taxable Benefits FAQ' concerning the reimbursement of professional fees.
Employer bears procedural onus to proceed first in failure to accommodate grievance.
The union brought a preliminary motion arguing that the employer should proceed first in a grievance alleging failure to accommodate and discrimination.
The grievor had previously been accommodated in her home position, but the employer unilaterally decided to end that arrangement and accommodate her in a lower position.
The Vice-Chair held that the employer bears the procedural onus to proceed first, as it uniquely possesses the knowledge of its operational requirements, the reasons for altering the accommodation, and what constitutes undue hardship.
Termination application dismissed as untimely because a lawful strike was still ongoing.
The applicant employees filed an application for termination of bargaining rights.
The responding party union objected on the basis that the application was untimely under section 67(3)(a) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, because a lawful strike was ongoing.
Although a memorandum of agreement had been signed and most employees had returned to work, 20 employees remained off work pursuant to the strike on the application date.
The Board found that a strike was still in effect and that the statute does not require a complete cessation of work or disruption for a strike to continue.
The Board dismissed the application as untimely.
Application for termination of bargaining rights dismissed as untimely under s. 67(3) of the LRA.
The responding union objected on the basis that the application was untimely under section 67(3) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.
A vote was held and the ballot box was sealed.
Following a hearing, the Board orally dismissed the application as untimely and directed that the ballots be destroyed without being counted.
Written reasons were to follow.
Crown ordered to deposit privatization decision documents for Board inspection despite public interest immunity claim.
The applicant union sought production of various government documents relating to the privatization of the 'GO Temp' service, alleging the Crown breached its duty to bargain in good faith by failing to disclose this decision during collective bargaining.
The Crown objected on grounds of timeliness and Crown public interest immunity.
The Board dismissed the timeliness objection.
Applying the test for Crown immunity, the Board found that certain Cabinet submissions and briefing notes were protected from disclosure.
However, the Board ordered the Crown to deposit specific documents reflecting the actual decision to privatize for the Board's confidential inspection to determine if they should be produced.
Board proceedings stayed due to reasonable apprehension of bias arising from internal disclosures about Vice-Chair removals.
The applicant union brought unfair labour practice and contempt applications against the respondents, including a Minister of the Crown.
During the proceedings, the Vice-Chair disclosed that all Board Vice-Chairs had received confidential information regarding the selection process for the recent removal of four Vice-Chairs, an issue central to the applicant's allegations of political interference and lack of institutional independence.
The respondents moved for recusal.
The Board held that, given the high standard of natural justice applicable to its adjudicative functions, the disclosure of this highly relevant but undisclosed information raised a reasonable apprehension of bias.
The proceedings were stayed.
Duty of fair representation and OHSA reprisal complaints largely dismissed for delay; remainder stayed.
The applicant filed complaints against his union (OPSEU) for breach of the duty of fair representation and against his employer (George Brown College) for reprisals under the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA).
The employer and union raised preliminary objections regarding jurisdiction, delay, and duplicate litigation, as the applicant had also filed human rights complaints.
The Board dismissed the duty of fair representation complaint, finding the applicant had elected to pursue his remedies under the OHSA and had unreasonably delayed in raising his concerns regarding a specific grievance.
The Board also dismissed the majority of the OHSA complaint due to unreasonable delay.
The sole remaining issue regarding the applicant's separation from employment was stayed pending the resolution of his concurrent human rights complaints to prevent forum shopping.
