John Smith

The union filed four grievances concerning the transfer of psychiatric facilities from the provincial government to hospitals and the subsequent enrollment of transferred employees in the Hospitals of Ontario Pension Plan (HOOPP) instead of the OPSEU Pension Trust (OPT).

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the grievances were untimely.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the grievances were filed late but granted an extension of time under s. 48(16) of the Labour Relations Act for the claims based on Appendices 9, 11, and article 2.1 of Appendix 18, as the delay was largely due to the union pursuing court proceedings and the employer suffered no substantial prejudice.

However, the Board denied an extension for the claims based on article 6.0 of Appendix 18, which had a strict seven-day time limit, due to the length of the delay and the lack of explanation.

The union filed grievances alleging the employer violated the collective agreement by failing to use reasonable or best efforts to persuade receiving hospitals to keep transferred employees in the union's pension plan.

Six hospitals applied for third-party standing to participate in the arbitration hearing, arguing the outcome could have significant financial repercussions for them.

The arbitrator reviewed the case law on third-party standing, distinguishing between employees governed by a collective agreement, third-party unions in jurisdictional disputes, and third-party contractors.

The arbitrator concluded the hospitals' financial interest was analogous to that of a contractor and did not confer an entitlement to notice or standing.

The applications for standing were denied.

The grievor brought a motion for the production of documents in a grievance regarding the calculation of his pay rate upon assignment to a superintendent position.

The employer opposed the production of certain documents, arguing they were not relevant and amounted to a fishing expedition.

The Public Service Grievance Board ordered the production of documents relating to the classification, pay rates, and incumbents of the superintendent positions, finding them arguably relevant to the grievor's claim of differential treatment.

The request for documents regarding the results of the competition was denied.

During the hearing of grievances regarding the Employer's alleged failure to accommodate the Grievor's asthma and sensitivity to second-hand smoke, the Employer brought a motion requesting that the Grievor be directed to participate in a further independent medical assessment regarding his sensitivity to dust.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the motion, finding that the Grievor had not requested accommodation for dust sensitivity, had not been absent due to dust exposure, and that the issue of dust sensitivity was not relevant to the grievances before the Board.

The Union filed a grievance alleging the Employer breached section 5.3 of Appendix 18 of the collective agreement by failing to ensure that receiving employers recognized seniority rights for lay-off and job competitions in Requests for Proposals (RFPs).

The parties sought an interpretation of section 5.3 prior to a hearing on remedy.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that the Employer is obligated to require new employers to provide core seniority protections in their job offers to transferring employees, specifically a 'relatively equal' clause for job competitions and a 'last hired, first laid off' provision for lay-offs.

The Grievance Settlement Board was asked to interpret section 5.2 of Appendix 18 of the collective agreement between the parties.

The issue was whether employees who exited the Ontario Public Service (OPS) under section 5.2, received surplus entitlements, and subsequently secured a new position in the OPS, were required to repay those monies pursuant to Articles 20.2.4 or 20.2.5.

The Union argued that these articles conferred a benefit and should not apply, while the Employer argued they were obligations.

The Board held that while section 5.2 removed Article 20 assistance for exiting employees, it did not prevent them from competing for open positions.

If successful, the collective agreement applies to them, and they are obligated to repay the monies under Articles 20.2.4 and 20.2.5, after which their continuous service date is recalculated.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued a brief decision regarding the interpretation of a collective agreement.

The Board held that an employee surplused under Section 5.2 of Appendix 18 who subsequently secures a position within the Ontario Public Service is required to repay monies in accordance with Articles 20.2.4 or 20.2.5.

Furthermore, the employee's service date must be calculated as required by those articles.

Reasons were to follow.

The union grieved that the employer violated Appendix 18 of the collective agreement by awarding requests for proposals to employers who did not recognize seniority rights for layoff and job competitions.

The parties sought an interpretation of sections 5.2 and 5.3.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that the modifying clause in section 5.3, 'to the extent that they are provided in the proponent's workplace,' applies only to severance and termination payments, meaning seniority for layoff and job competitions must be recognized.

However, regarding section 5.2, the Board held that employees opting out of the transfer are restricted to the specific benefits listed in that section and do not retain full rights under Article 20.2, such as applying for restricted competitions.

The grievor voluntarily submitted a letter of intent to retire.

Prior to the effective date of his retirement, he sought to rescind his resignation.

The employer, acting with the delegated authority of the Deputy Minister, declined the request.

The union grieved the refusal.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that under section 19 of the Public Service Act, the decision to accept a withdrawal of a resignation is a management function not open to arbitral review unless the collective agreement clearly provides for it.

As there was no such provision, the Board lacked jurisdiction to intervene.

The union filed policy grievances regarding the transfer of two psychiatric hospitals to the broader public sector.

Affected employees received job offers from the receiving facilities and were deemed to have resigned from the public service.

The dispute centered on whether employees with between one and five years of service were entitled to severance pay under the collective agreement.

The arbitrator found that the collective agreement was ambiguous regarding whether the deemed resignation occurred during the surplus notice period.

However, because the right to severance pay existed prior to the addition of the transfer appendices and was not clearly negated, the arbitrator concluded that the employees were entitled to severance pay.

The grievor, a former Cabinet Office employee, was surplussed and laid off prior to the enactment of Bill 7, which excluded Cabinet Office employees from the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act.

He was subsequently recalled to a lower-classified position and sought assignment to a vacancy under article 18.8.1(h) of the collective agreement.

The employer denied the assignment, arguing Bill 7 removed him from the bargaining unit.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that the grievor's rights under article 18.8.1(h) vested when he was surplussed, prior to Bill 7.

Applying the presumption against interference with vested rights, the Board found Bill 7 did not deprive the grievor of his entitlement and ordered the employer to assess his qualifications for the vacancy.