George Parris

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 employer brought a motion to dismiss a portion of a grievance alleging that 'survey stops' assigned to Transport Enforcement Officers violated the Highway Traffic Act and the Charter, arguing the Grievance Settlement Board lacked jurisdiction.

The union argued that employees cannot be required to perform unlawful work assignments and that the Board has jurisdiction to determine the legality of the assignment.

The Arbitrator found that the Board has jurisdiction to adjudicate the allegation provided the state of the law is such that it is clear and unambiguous that the employer's directions would require the officers to perform functions that would result in a violation of the HTA or the Charter.

The employer sought disclosure of the grievor's medical records relating to facial hair and night-shift accommodations.

The arbitrator ordered the grievor to execute releases for clinical notes, reports, and correspondence from January 2018 to December 2020.

The disclosure was subject to conditions, including prior review by union counsel for redaction of irrelevant information and strict limits on the employer's distribution of the documents.

Following a hearing, the Arbitrator issued a procedural direction allowing the parties to provide submissions on two specific cases: Metropolitan Toronto (Municipality) v. C.U.P.E. and Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Rouatt) v. Ontario (Ministry of Labour).

Submissions were directed to be provided by February 9, 2021.

AMAPCEO filed grievances asserting that Sergeants employed in correctional institutions should be covered by its collective agreement.

OPSEU sought to intervene, arguing that if the Sergeants are employees, they belong in OPSEU's correctional bargaining unit.

AMAPCEO objected, arguing that the Ontario Labour Relations Board had already decided the representational issue in a prior certification application by PSAC, and that issue estoppel applied.

The Arbitrator found that the OLRB's prior decision was not a final determination of whether AMAPCEO had abandoned or relinquished its bargaining rights after 1995.

Therefore, issue estoppel did not apply, and OPSEU was granted the right to intervene.

The union and the employer engaged in mediation to resolve compensation issues following an employee's reinstatement.

The parties exchanged emails agreeing to a Memorandum of Agreement that settled all compensation issues for a gross amount.

The union subsequently argued that the settlement did not include a separate payout of vacation credits, and that it would not have agreed to the settlement had it known the vacation credits were subsumed.

The arbitrator held that the clear language of the Memorandum of Agreement settled all issues relating to compensation, including vacation, and that the email exchange constituted a binding and enforceable settlement.

The grievor, a correctional officer with over 25 years of service, grieved his termination for allegedly displaying bullying conduct, using excessive force on an inmate, and failing to submit an occurrence report.

The incident involved the grievor confiscating liquid soap from an inmate and following him into a shower stall, where the inmate alleged the grievor physically pinned him and used abusive language.

The arbitrator applied the Faryna v. Chorny test for credibility and preferred the inmate's evidence, noting it was corroborated by a registered nurse and video evidence.

Given the grievor's prior 15-day suspension for similar misconduct and his lack of remorse, the arbitrator found just cause for termination and dismissed the grievance.

The Association of Management, Administrative and Professional Crown Employees of Ontario (AMAPCEO) filed a grievance against the Crown.

The Ontario Public Service Employees Union (OPSEU) sought intervener status.

AMAPCEO argued that the issue of representation had already been decided by the Ontario Labour Relations Board, rendering OPSEU's intervention moot due to res judicata or issue estoppel.

OPSEU did not address this argument in its reply submissions, maintaining it had a right to intervene first.

The arbitrator declined to rule on the intervention without further submissions from OPSEU on the res judicata issue, directing a schedule for further written submissions to avoid adding uncertainty to the long-standing dispute.

The union grieved that the employer failed to provide a safe workplace for a correctional officer during an incident at the Vanier Centre for Women.

Following unsuccessful settlement discussions, the arbitrator issued procedural directions for the continuation of the hearing.

The union was ordered to provide particulars regarding claimed sick days, compensatory time off, and the specific alleged breaches of the collective agreement and occupational health and safety legislation.

The parties agreed to a procedure for addressing outstanding grievances regarding entitlement to the Custodial Responsibility Allowance (CRA) for various positions.

The arbitrator set a schedule for the exchange of written submissions based on the union's filed particulars.

The Union filed grievances on behalf of several employees whose applications for the Transition Exit Initiative (TEI) were denied by the Employer.

The Union argued that the Employer fettered its discretion by only considering whether the employees' positions were still required.

The Arbitrator dismissed the grievances, finding no meaningful distinction from previous decisions which held that the Employer has broad discretion under Appendix 46 to determine whether an employee's exit supports the transformation of the Ontario Public Service.

The union filed grievances on behalf of four employees whose requests for enhanced severance benefits under the Transition Exit Initiative were denied by the employer.

The union argued that the employer fettered its discretion by only considering whether the positions were still required.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievances, finding no basis to distinguish them from previous decisions which established that the employer has broad discretion under the collective agreement to determine whether an employee's exit supports the transformation of the public service.

The union filed grievances on behalf of four employees whose requests for enhanced severance benefits under the Transition Exit Initiative (TEI) were denied by the employer prior to their retirements.

The union argued the employer fettered its discretion by only considering whether the positions were still required, rather than a broader view of workforce transformation.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievances, finding the cases indistinguishable from previous decisions which held that the employer has broad discretion to determine whether an employee's exit supports transformation and is entitled to focus on downsizing.

The Union (Cody Group) brought a motion for production of documents in a grievance arbitration concerning allegations of workplace assault and harassment.

The requested documents included a manager's personnel file, communications regarding a prior investigation, and all communications between the manager and the accused grievor.

The Arbitrator dismissed the motion, finding that the requested documents were not arguably relevant to the core issue of whether the alleged misconduct occurred, and that the request for all communications amounted to an impermissible fishing expedition.

The Union filed grievances on behalf of several employees whose requests for a voluntary exit package under the Transition Exit Initiative (TEI) were denied by the Employer.

The Union argued that the Employer fettered its discretion by only considering whether the positions were still required.

The Arbitrator dismissed the grievances, finding that the Employer properly exercised its broad discretion under the collective agreement to determine that the employees' exits would not support its vision of transformation, consistent with previous decisions on the same issue.

The Union sought preliminary orders regarding hearing accommodations, document production, and grievance consolidation.

The accommodation request, which sought specific security measures and separation from another individual due to medical reasons, was contested by the Employer and the other individual.

The Arbitrator found the medical documentation unclear and subject to legitimate challenge.

However, noting an existing peace bond against the other individual, the Arbitrator ordered alternative hearing procedures allowing the grievors to participate via video conference, rendering the accommodation request moot.

The Arbitrator also ordered the Employer to produce requested documents and confirmed the consent consolidation of certain grievances.

The grievor, a Regional Program Coordinator and military reservist, was discharged for allegedly claiming compensation from both the employer and the Department of National Defence for the same blocks of time.

The employer relied on military pay sheets to argue the grievor worked for the military during his regular working hours.

The arbitrator found that the military pay sheets did not accurately reflect the actual dates and times work was performed, and the employer failed to prove the grievor engaged in time theft or double dipping without authorization.

The grievance was allowed and the grievor was reinstated with full compensation.

The parties agreed to adjourn a scheduled mediation at the Union's request.

To ensure a productive rescheduled mediation, the Arbitrator directed the Union to prepare and provide to Employer counsel a written outline of its position on the monetary value of any outstanding remedy for both grievances, along with the rationale for its position, by a specified date.

The union filed grievances on behalf of several correctional officers whose applications for the Transition Exit Initiative (TEI) were denied by the employer.

The union argued that the employer's exclusive focus on staffing shortages and the lack of intention to reduce correctional officer positions amounted to a blanket rule, thereby fettering its discretion.

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

The consistent denial of TEI requests from correctional officers was not due to an improper blanket rule, but rather reflected the shared operational and fiscal realities of their chronically understaffed positions, which meant their exit would not support the employer's vision of transformation.