170 total
Arbitrator rules Cabinet memo did not alter Employer's discretion to approve Transition Exit Initiative applications.
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.
Employer's non-suit and mootness motions dismissed as Union established a prima facie case.
The Employer brought a non-suit motion and a motion to dismiss the grievance for mootness in an arbitration concerning the alleged bad faith reclassification of Executive Support ITSOs.
The Arbitrator applied the established principles for non-suit motions and found that the Union's evidence met the minimum threshold of credibility to establish a prima facie case.
Both the non-suit motion and the mootness motion were dismissed without detailed reasons, in accordance with the Board's practice when denying such motions.
The matter will continue on the scheduled dates.
Grievances allowed and remitted to Employer after it conceded failing to properly exercise discretion regarding nursing allowance.
Two nurses filed individual grievances after the Employer denied them the N3 nursing allowance for holding a degree in nursing science.
The collective agreement provides that the application of the allowance is at the discretion of management.
The Employer conceded that it did not consider the criteria set out in the collective agreement and therefore failed to appropriately exercise its discretion.
The arbitrator allowed the individual grievances and remitted the requests back to the Employer to exercise its discretion properly.
Grievances alleging excessive workload and health and safety risks for detention centre staff dismissed.
The Union filed group grievances on behalf of Cleaners and Stores employees at the Toronto South Detention Centre, alleging that their workload was excessive and posed an unreasonable health and safety risk in violation of the Collective Agreement and the Occupational Health and Safety Act.
The Union sought the assignment of inmate workers to assist the employees, which could also entitle them to the Custodial Responsibility Allowance.
The Arbitrator dismissed the grievances, finding that while the jobs were physically demanding, there was no evidence that the workload was excessive or presented unreasonable health and safety risks.
Employer ordered on consent to produce investigation report subject to strict confidentiality conditions.
The Union sought production of an Investigation Report and related materials.
On consent of the parties, the arbitrator ordered the Employer to produce the documents subject to strict confidentiality conditions, including restrictions on copying, distribution, and use solely for the purposes of the arbitration.
Consent order issued for production of investigation report subject to strict confidentiality conditions.
The parties consented to an order directing the employer to produce an investigation report and related materials to the union.
The arbitrator ordered the production subject to strict confidentiality conditions, including restrictions on copying, electronic distribution, and a requirement to destroy the documents at the conclusion of the proceedings.
Employer breached collective agreement by directly assigning excluded employees to newly created bargaining unit positions.
The union filed grievances alleging the employer breached the collective agreement by creating a new 'correctional supervisor' position and directly assigning former sergeants to it without posting the vacancies.
The employer argued the assignments were reclassifications of excluded managerial staff into the bargaining unit.
The arbitrator found that the correctional supervisor role was a 'new regular position in the bargaining unit' under the collective agreement, triggering the mandatory job posting requirement.
The arbitrator upheld the grievances, finding the employer could not circumvent collective agreement rights by reclassifying excluded employees into the bargaining unit without a posting.
Grievances regarding denial of Transition Exit Initiative requests and delayed payment of benefits dismissed.
The Union filed grievances on behalf of three employees regarding the operation of the Transition Exit Initiative (TEI) under the collective agreement.
Two grievors alleged the Employer improperly denied their requests to exit under the TEI, while the third alleged their approved enhanced benefits were not paid within a reasonable time.
Applying established principles regarding the Employer's broad discretion to approve TEI requests, the Arbitrator found the Employer properly exercised its discretion in denying the two requests and that the payments to the third grievor were made within a reasonable period.
The grievances were dismissed.
Grievances over denial of Transition Exit Initiative benefits dismissed; no discrimination against employees on LTIP.
The Union filed grievances on behalf of 11 employees who were denied enhanced benefits under the Transition Exit Initiative (TEI).
The Union argued that the Employer improperly exercised its discretion and discriminated against three grievors on Long Term Income Protection (LTIP) by denying their applications as a class.
The Arbitrator dismissed the grievances, finding that the Employer properly exercised its broad discretion under Appendix 46 of the Collective Agreement.
The Arbitrator also held that denying TEI to employees on LTIP did not violate the Ontario Human Rights Code, as they no longer held permanent positions that could be eliminated to prevent surplussing other employees, which is the core objective of the TEI program.
Grievances over denial of Transition Exit Initiative benefits dismissed as employer properly exercised its discretion.
The union filed grievances on behalf of eight employees who were denied enhanced benefits under the Transition Exit Initiative (TEI) before retiring from the Ontario Public Service.
The arbitrator reviewed the principles established in earlier cases regarding the employer's discretion under Appendix 46 of the collective agreement.
The arbitrator concluded that the employer properly exercised its discretion when considering the grievors' requests to exit under the TEI.
Grievances over denied Transition Exit Initiative requests dismissed as Employer properly exercised its broad discretion.
Ten grievors filed grievances alleging the Employer improperly exercised its discretion by denying their requests for enhanced benefits under the Transition Exit Initiative (TEI) before they retired from the Ontario Public Service.
The Arbitrator applied established principles from earlier cases, confirming the Employer has broad discretion to determine whether granting a TEI request supports transformation of the public service.
Finding no improper exercise of discretion, the grievances were dismissed.
Grievances over denial of Transition Exit Initiative benefits dismissed as Employer properly exercised its discretion.
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 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.
Grievances over denial of Transition Exit Initiative applications dismissed; Employer properly exercised its broad discretion.
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.
Medical clerk denied Custodial Responsibility Allowance; groundskeeper grievance referred back to parties.
The Union filed grievances on behalf of a Medical Clerk and a Groundskeeper claiming entitlement to the Custodial Responsibility Allowance (CRA) under the collective agreement.
The arbitrator found that the Medical Clerk did not establish a prima facie case for the CRA, as she did not direct inmates engaged in beneficial labour for a major portion of her working time, nor was she required to lay charges for breaches of institutional regulations.
The Groundskeeper's grievance was referred back to the parties for further consideration in light of new information.
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.
Grievances over denial of Transition Exit Initiative dismissed; employer properly exercised its discretion.
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.
Grievance dismissed; employer correctly calculated and withheld allowable amounts under a garnishee order.
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.
Prima facie case for Custodial Responsibility Allowance established only for backfilling duties, not regular mechanic duties.
The Union filed grievances claiming entitlement to the Custodial Responsibility Allowance (CRA) for five Maintenance Mechanics.
The Arbitrator determined whether a prima facie case was established based on written submissions.
The Arbitrator found that the grievors' regular duties as Maintenance Mechanics did not involve directing inmates engaged in beneficial labour, and thus dismissed that portion of the grievances.
However, the Arbitrator found that a prima facie case was established for the periods when the grievors backfilled for grounds, cleaning, and laundry staff, as those duties involved supervising inmates.
The grievances were dismissed in part and referred back to the parties regarding the backfilling duties.
Grievances for Custodial Responsibility Allowance dismissed as officers did not direct inmates in beneficial labour.
The Union filed grievances on behalf of five Rehabilitation Officers claiming entitlement to the Custodial Responsibility Allowance (CRA).
The arbitrator reviewed the written submissions and particulars to determine if a prima facie case was established.
The arbitrator found that the grievors did not direct inmates engaged in beneficial labour for a major portion of their working time, which is a condition for CRA entitlement under the collective agreement.
Furthermore, their positions likely already took into account responsibility for the control of inmates.
