170 total
Group grievance for Custodial Responsibility Allowance dismissed as prima facie case not established.
The Union filed a group grievance claiming entitlement to the Custodial Responsibility Allowance (CRA) for six Rehabilitation Officers working at the Maplehurst Correctional Complex.
The Arbitrator reviewed written submissions to determine if a prima facie case for entitlement was established.
The Arbitrator found that the grievors did not meet all the requirements for the CRA, specifically noting they did not direct inmates engaged in beneficial labour for the majority of their working day.
The grievance was dismissed as a prima facie case was not established.
Grievances for Custodial Responsibility Allowance dismissed as employees did not meet all required conditions.
The Union filed grievances on behalf of four Temporary Absence Pass Coordinators claiming entitlement to the Custodial Responsibility Allowance (CRA).
The parties agreed to a written process to determine if a prima facie case for entitlement existed.
The arbitrator found that the grievors did not direct inmates engaged in beneficial labour for a major portion of their working time, and their positions already took into account responsibility for the control of inmates.
As the grievors did not satisfy all conditions for the CRA, the grievances were dismissed.
Union's request for production of grievor's pay stubs denied as irrelevant to Custodial Responsibility Allowance claim.
In a grievance claiming entitlement to the Custodial Responsibility Allowance, the Union requested production of the grievor's personnel file and pay stubs.
The Employer agreed to produce the personnel file but opposed producing the pay stubs.
The Arbitrator denied the Union's request for the pay stubs, finding that the primary factual issues concerned the grievor's position and duties, making his actual pay irrelevant.
The request for pay stubs from a previous position was also denied as being beyond the scope of the grievance.
Grievances alleging improper exercise of management discretion regarding Transition Exit Initiative applications dismissed.
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.
Grievances over denied Transition Exit Initiative applications dismissed as Employer properly exercised its discretion.
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.
Grievances over denied Transition Exit Initiative applications dismissed as Employer properly exercised its broad discretion.
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.
AMAPCEO found to have relinquished bargaining rights over correctional Sergeants to OPSEU in 2008/2009 agreements.
The Association (AMAPCEO) filed disputes asserting that Sergeants and Youth Service Managers employed in correctional institutions were covered by its collective agreement.
The Employer and the intervening union (OPSEU) argued that AMAPCEO had relinquished any such bargaining rights in 2008 and 2009 agreements, and that OPSEU held 'wall-to-wall' bargaining rights for all employees at correctional facilities.
The Arbitrator found that AMAPCEO had indeed relinquished its rights regarding these positions through a 2008 Memorandum of Agreement and subsequent collective agreement, and that any representation rights for these employees, to the extent they do not exercise managerial functions, are held by OPSEU.
Grievance regarding compressed work week dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and impermissible expansion of scope.
The union filed a grievance seeking a firm commitment from the employer to negotiate a new compressed work week arrangement.
At the hearing, the union attempted to argue that the employer's failure to schedule employees according to regular hours resulted in unpaid overtime.
The arbitrator held that the issue of overtime was an impermissible expansion of the scope of the grievance, as it was not mentioned in the original grievance document.
Furthermore, the arbitrator ruled that the Grievance Settlement Board lacks jurisdiction to direct the employer to negotiate a compressed work week arrangement, as this falls within management rights.
The portion of the grievance relating to the compressed work week was dismissed.
Grievances for call-back pay dismissed as untimely; lack of knowledge of rights does not delay time limits.
The employer brought a motion to dismiss two grievances claiming call-back pay on the basis that they were filed outside the mandatory 30-day time limit under the collective agreement.
The union argued the time limit only began to run when the employees realized their preparatory work might constitute compensable work and their amended timesheets were denied.
The Arbitrator rejected this argument, finding the employees were aware of the facts giving rise to the claim at the time the work was performed.
The Arbitrator declined to extend the time limits under s. 48(16) of the Labour Relations Act and dismissed the grievances as untimely.
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.
Grievances regarding Transition Exit Initiative dismissed as grievors had already received the initiative.
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.
Employer ordered to pay $9,552.22 for failing to maintain minimum staffing levels.
The Grievance Settlement Board determined the compensation owed to correctional officers for the employer's breach of a compressed work week agreement that required maintaining a minimum staffing level.
The Board calculated the shortfall in hours over a 155-week period using representative weeks, determining a 2-hour weekly shortfall.
Compensation was awarded based on the average hourly rate, with half the hours paid at the overtime rate, subject to a 15% discount for occasions when the overtime list was exhausted.
Employer breached minimum staffing levels on statutory holidays; union awarded $2,221.10 for 35-hour shortfall.
The union filed a grievance alleging the employer contravened a Compressed Work Week Agreement by falling below the minimum staffing level of 158 classified correctional officer positions on statutory holidays.
The union argued that a separate pilot project agreement should increase the base positions to 165, but the arbitrator rejected this based on the clear wording of the agreement.
The arbitrator found a total shortfall of 35 hours for 2014 and 2015.
Compensation was awarded at double the second-highest regular hourly rate, totaling $2,221.10.
Grievance dismissed for 14-month delay; arbitrator declined to extend time limits.
The employer brought a motion to dismiss a grievance alleging harassment and bullying on the basis that it was not filed in a timely manner.
The grievance was filed 14 months after the deadline provided in the collective agreement.
The union requested an extension of time limits under section 48(16) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.
The arbitrator declined to exercise discretion to extend the time limits, noting the significant delay, the fact that the delay occurred at the initial filing stage, and the lack of a consistent explanation from the grievor.
The grievance was dismissed.
Employer's motion to dismiss grievance regarding survey stops granted for lack of jurisdiction.
The union grieved that 'survey stops' performed by transport enforcement officers violated the Highway Traffic Act and section 9 of the Charter.
In a prior decision, the Grievance Settlement Board held it would only have jurisdiction if the employer's directions clearly and unambiguously required functions resulting in such violations.
At the hearing, the union was unable to provide evidence or prior decisions establishing that survey stops constitute a clear violation.
Consequently, the employer's motion to dismiss the 'survey stops' portion of the grievance for lack of jurisdiction was granted.
Union's complaint alleging employer breached settlement agreement regarding training and job shadowing dismissed.
The union filed a complaint alleging that the employer failed to comply with a memorandum of settlement by not providing the grievor with agreed-upon training courses and meaningful job shadowing opportunities.
The arbitrator found that the employer did not prevent the grievor from taking the courses and that the job shadowing provided met the obligations under the settlement.
The complaint was dismissed.
Grievances over denied Transition Exit Initiative applications dismissed; Employer properly exercised its broad discretion.
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.
Grievances alleging delayed Transition Exit Initiative approvals due to employer misinformation dismissed absent bad faith.
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.
