John Smith

The grievor, a Correctional Officer with asthma requiring a smoke-free workplace, was previously determined to be appropriately accommodated at the Brookside Youth Centre.

However, no vacancies existed.

Following the closure of other facilities, positions were transferred to Brookside, leaving one unfilled.

The Union sought to have the grievor placed in this unfilled position.

The Employer argued that the position was unfunded and that it had no obligation to create a job.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that placing the grievor in the unfilled transferred position did not amount to creating a new position and would not cause the Employer undue hardship.

The Employer was directed to place the grievor in the position.

The Grievance Settlement Board determined the quantum of damages owed to grievors following a previous finding that the employer breached the collective agreement during a divestment process.

The breach deprived the grievors of the opportunity to choose work with a new employer while retaining seniority protection for lay-off and promotion.

Rejecting the employer's argument for nominal damages, the Board awarded compensatory damages calculated by multiplying two weeks' salary by each grievor's years of service, plus interest.

The Grievance Settlement Board previously determined that the grievor, a Correctional Officer with asthma and sensitivity to cigarette smoke, should be placed at the Brookside Youth Centre to accommodate his medical needs.

Following the transfer of several positions to Brookside, one position remained unfilled.

The Union argued the grievor should be placed in this unfilled position, while the Employer opposed.

The Vice-Chair concluded that placing the grievor in the unfilled position was consistent with the Employer's duty to accommodate and did not constitute undue hardship.

The grievor, who has asthma, had been accommodated with steady day shifts for many years.

The employer sought to have the grievor try shift work and presented expert medical evidence indicating that the only way to determine if the grievor could tolerate shift work was to have him try it.

The union relied on past medical notes but did not call medical witnesses.

The arbitrator accepted the employer's expert evidence and concluded that the grievor should try shift work, subject to further medical review if it adversely affected his condition.

The Union brought a motion requesting that the Employer be directed to canvass certain employees about their interest in transferring to the Toronto East Detention Centre.

This was to facilitate the placement of the grievor, who required accommodation at the Brookside Youth Centre due to asthma and smoke sensitivity.

The Employer argued this was an unreasonable burden.

The Vice-Chair granted the motion, finding the request reasonable and consistent with the Employer's duty to accommodate.

The grievor previously signed Minutes of Settlement waiving his employment rights under Article 20 of the collective agreement in exchange for a surplus package.

Years later, after returning from long-term disability, the Employer mistakenly sent him a letter offering him bumping rights and a potential job relocation.

The Employer quickly rescinded the offer upon realizing the error.

The Union argued the Employer was estopped from relying on the prior settlement due to the mistaken offer.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding the mistaken letter was not intended to alter the legal relationship and the grievor had not relied on it to his detriment.

The Employer raised a preliminary objection that the Union's grievance concerning the transfer of the Lakehead Psychiatric Hospital to St. Joseph's Care Group was untimely.

The Union alleged that the transfer agreement did not comply with the collective agreement regarding terms and conditions of employment and financial incentives.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the time for filing the grievance began to run when the Union received the transfer agreement in February 2000, not when it was advised in April 2003 that the financial incentive had not been paid.

The grievance was dismissed as untimely.

The grievor, a Correctional Officer with asthma and a sensitivity to cigarette smoke, required workplace accommodation.

The Grievance Settlement Board previously found the Employer could not accommodate him at his home position and directed placement elsewhere.

The parties disputed whether the appropriate placement was at Brookside Youth Centre, Toronto West Detention Centre, or Central East Correctional Centre.

The Board determined Brookside was the most appropriate placement due to a significantly lower risk of exposure to cigarette smoke, as youth facilities have had a smoke-free policy for over ten years and the physical structure reduces risk.

The Union's claim for mileage for the additional travel distance to Brookside was dismissed, as the employee is obliged to cooperate reasonably with accommodation efforts and the additional distance was not significant.

The grievor, a Correctional Officer with asthma and a sensitivity to cigarette smoke, required accommodation after it was determined he could not be accommodated at his home position at the Toronto East Detention Centre.

The Employer offered a position at the Toronto West Detention Centre, which the grievor rejected.

The Grievance Settlement Board determined that the appropriate placement for the grievor was at the Brookside Youth Centre.

The Board also dismissed the Union's claim that the grievor was entitled to a mileage rate for the additional 19 kilometers he would be required to travel to Brookside.

The union filed grievances claiming that employees with between one and five years of service whose work was transferred to a new employer under Schedule A or Schedule C of Appendix 18 were entitled to severance pay.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that employees who elect not to be included in a Request for Proposals (RFP) are declared surplus and are entitled to severance pay.

However, employees who elect to be included in an RFP and either accept a job offer or decline one (with specific exceptions under Schedule C) are deemed to have resigned and are not entitled to severance pay.

The union sought compensation for a grievor's lost promotional opportunities and lost overtime arising from the employer's failure to accommodate his sensitivity to second-hand smoke.

The arbitrator dismissed the claim for lost promotional opportunities, finding the employer properly denied an acting position that would have placed the grievor in a smoke-filled environment.

The arbitrator granted the claim for lost overtime in part, awarding compensation based on an average of 5 lost overtime hours per month since 1994.

The parties resolved some outstanding issues arising from grievances filed by the grievor, a Correctional Officer with asthma who requires a smoke-free workplace.

The Grievance Settlement Board determined three remaining issues: (1) the Employer's offer of accommodation at a facility further from the grievor's home was not unreasonable based solely on the additional travel time and distance; (2) the grievor was entitled to interest on the amount paid for credits used to top up sick leave; and (3) the grievor was entitled to compensation for statutory holidays missed due to the Employer's failure to accommodate him.

The Union moved to have the grievance granted on the basis that relevant evidence required to advance its case was destroyed by an agent of the Ministry.

The Ministry had hired a consultant to conduct a workplace review, and the consultant destroyed all interview notes and documents pursuant to its 'best practices' policy.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the destroyed documents were highly relevant and their destruction irreparably prejudiced the Union's ability to advance its case, the Employer's ability to defend its actions, and the Board's ability to determine the merits.

Concluding that a full and fair hearing could not take place, the Board granted the grievance and ordered the grievor reinstated to his home position.

The union filed grievances claiming that former Crown employees who worked at psychiatric institutions transferred to broader public sector hospitals were entitled to termination and severance pay under the Employment Standards Act.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the claims for employees with less than five years of service for severance pay and less than three months for termination pay, based on statutory minimums.

The Board found that classified employees who accepted job offers with receiving hospitals were terminated within the meaning of the Act, as the deemed resignation provisions in the collective agreement could not override statutory employment standards.

The issue of whether the employer applied the sale of business provisions in an arbitrary or discriminatory manner to deny severance pay to certain employees was remitted to the parties for factual determination.

The grievor, a Correctional Officer with asthma and a sensitivity to cigarette smoke, filed grievances alleging the Employer failed to accommodate his handicap by not providing a smoke-free environment at the Toronto Jail.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that despite assigning the grievor to designated non-smoking areas, the Employer failed to adequately enforce its smoking policy, resulting in frequent exposure to smoke by staff and managers.

The Board concluded the Employer failed to accommodate the grievor to the point of undue hardship and ordered compensation for losses resulting from absences caused by smoke exposure.

The Union grieved the Ministry's practice of requiring Conservation Officers to agree in advance to take authorized overtime as compensatory time off (CTO) and to carry over unused CTO, as a condition of authorizing the overtime.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that this practice violated the collective agreement, which gives employees the right to choose between overtime pay and CTO.

The Board declared that the Ministry cannot consider an employee's election regarding compensation when deciding whether to authorize overtime, and struck down individual agreements that contradicted the collective agreement.

The Grievance Settlement Board evaluated the Employer's proposal to accommodate a Correctional Officer with asthma and sensitivity to cigarette smoke by assigning him temporarily to the administrative offices of the Toronto East Detention Centre.

The Board found the proposal unreasonable because the grievor would still be exposed to cigarette smoke in other areas of the institution, such as the locker room and washroom, due to ongoing violations of the smoking policy.

The Employer was directed to attempt to accommodate the grievor at a location other than the Toronto East Detention Centre.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissing her complaint that the union breached its duty of fair representation.

The applicant alleged the union failed to incorporate an agreed term regarding the repayment of Employment Insurance premiums into a settlement agreement.

The Divisional Court applied the patent unreasonableness standard of review and found the Board's conclusion that the written memorandum reflected the final settlement was reasonable.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

Following a prior decision finding that the employer failed to accommodate the grievor's occupational asthma and sensitivity to cigarette smoke, the employer proposed assigning the grievor to the control room at the Toronto East Detention Centre.

The grievor rejected the proposal, arguing he would still be exposed to second-hand smoke.

The Grievance Settlement Board found the employer's proposal unreasonable, as evidence demonstrated a fairly high risk of exposure to cigarette smoke in the control room.

The Board held that the grievor's decision not to try the accommodation was not unreasonable.

The grievor, a correctional officer with asthma, filed grievances alleging the Employer failed to accommodate his disability by exposing him to second-hand cigarette smoke at the Toronto East Detention Centre.

Despite the implementation of smoking policies, the grievor was frequently exposed to smoke due to poor enforcement and assignments that required him to enter inmate living areas.

The arbitrator found that the grievor's asthma constituted a handicap under the Human Rights Code and that the Employer failed to demonstrate it had accommodated him to the point of undue hardship.

The grievances were allowed, and the Employer was directed to renew accommodation efforts and compensate the grievor for lost time caused by smoke exposure.