Kelly Burke

The union filed a grievance on behalf of a project soils engineer claiming entitlement to travel credits for time spent travelling outside normal working hours.

The employer argued that travel and road monitoring were inherent parts of the grievor's work, relying on a previous decision involving a different employee.

The arbitrator found that the grievor's duties differed from the previous case, as he was not required to monitor pavement conditions while driving at highway speeds.

The arbitrator concluded that travel was not an inherent part of the grievor's work and allowed the grievance, entitling him to travel credits.

The union filed a grievance regarding holiday compensation for full-time, classified employees designated to provide essential or emergency services during an OPSEU strike spanning Good Friday and Easter Monday.

The Grievance Settlement Board determined the general rules for applying the collective agreement to these employees.

The Board held that emergency workers were covered by the collective agreement only between being scheduled to work and completing all scheduled work.

Essential workers who performed essential services were covered by the collective agreement for the entire duration of the strike.

The specific application of these rules to holiday compensation was deferred.

The grievor, who was receiving Long Term Income Protection (LTIP) benefits, claimed discrimination on the basis of handicap because his LTIP benefits and pension contributions were not increased to reflect a salary increase that came into effect after he became disabled.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, applying the Court of Appeal's reasoning in Orillia Soldiers Memorial Hospital.

The Board found that the differential treatment was based on work, not disability, and that the grievor was not treated less favourably than able-bodied employees absent from work.

The grievor, a Finance Officer with the Ministry of Education, was re-elected as a school board trustee.

The Ministry determined that holding both positions constituted a conflict of interest under the Public Service Act and required him to resign his employment.

When he refused, the Ministry deemed him to have resigned.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that a conflict of interest did exist because the grievor had access to confidential Ministry information that could benefit a school board.

However, because the Ministry had previously permitted him to hold both roles and failed to give him timely notice of its changed position, the Board modified the penalty, allowing the grievor 60 days to resign his trustee position and be reinstated to his employment.

The grievor, an Examination/Administrative Clerk with 23 years of service, was terminated for allegedly soliciting $1,000 from a candidate in exchange for a passing grade on a trade certification exam.

The union grieved the termination, arguing the employer failed to establish just cause with clear and cogent evidence.

The arbitrator found the candidate's testimony credible and the grievor's denials unconvincing.

Concluding that the grievor compromised the integrity of the examination process and committed a serious breach of trust, the arbitrator upheld the discharge and dismissed the grievance.

The Union filed a policy grievance contesting the Employer's position that surplus employees who accept pay in lieu of notice and apply for restricted competitions under Article 20.2.3 of the collective agreement cannot grieve those competitions.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that Article 20.2.3 creates a substantive right to apply for restricted competitions, and therefore disputes over that right are arbitrable under the collective agreement and the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act.

The Board further determined that the standard of review for such grievances is the 'bad faith' standard, similar to that applied to unclassified employees.

The Association filed grievances on behalf of several engineers regarding eligibility for travel credits under Article 13 of the collective agreement.

The Employer argued that travel was an inherent part of the engineers' positions, making them ineligible for the credits.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that travel was not an inherent part of the work for most of the grievors, as they were merely transporting themselves to and from work sites without discharging actual job responsibilities during the travel.

The grievances were allowed, with specific determinations made for each grievor based on whether they performed actual work while travelling.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the grievances were inarbitrable classification grievances barred by the Local Appendix to the Social Framework Agreement and the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act.

The representative grievor claimed retroactive pay for a period between his promotion and the subsequent reclassification of his former position, which had resulted in his new position temporarily paying less than his former one.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the employer's objection, finding that because the proper classification had already been determined and implemented, the grievance was merely a dispute over the extent of retroactivity and compensation, not a classification grievance.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the grievances filed by the union were classification grievances and therefore inarbitrable under the Local Appendix to the Social Framework Agreement.

The union argued the grievances were for retroactive compensation and arbitrary exercise of management rights, not reclassification.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that claims requiring a determination of proper classification at a prior time were barred by the Local Appendix.

However, the Board retained jurisdiction over claims alleging arbitrary exercise of management rights regarding step increases and claims for retroactivity flowing from a previously ordered reclassification.

The Union filed individual and policy grievances alleging that students employed by the St. Lawrence Parks Commission at Fort Henry were improperly paid student wage rates instead of the higher classified or unclassified rates for the positions they occupied.

The Union argued that because the students performed the same duties as seasonal employees, they were not in 'student positions' under the collective agreement.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the main grievances, finding that the students were hired into 'student positions' and were properly paid the standardized student wage rates negotiated in Appendix 12.

The Board also held that individual students could not arbitrate their assigned wage rates.

However, the Board found that students working outside their 'regular vacation period' did not meet the definition of a student, and directed the parties to negotiate their status and rate of pay for those periods.

The grievor, a ferry captain, was suspended for 20 days after leaving the wheelhouse during boarding without ensuring his replacement was present or that mooring lines were secured.

The ferry subsequently drifted from the dock due to a mechanical failure in the emergency steering system, leaving passengers stranded.

The grievor argued that an oppressive work schedule caused fatigue and a sudden stomach ailment, excusing his departure.

The arbitrator found no medical evidence to support the grievor's claims of fatigue or illness and concluded that the grievor abandoned his post without taking appropriate safety measures.

The grievance was dismissed and the 20-day suspension was upheld.

Following a pre-hearing conference regarding an unfair labour practice complaint, the Ontario Labour Relations Board issued procedural directions.

The Crown advised it would participate without prejudice to its preliminary objection that it is not a proper responding party.

The Board reserved judgment on the objection until final argument.

The Board directed the applicant to provide written submissions on the onus of proof, agreed facts, documents, and remedies sought, and directed the employer and trade union to advise if further bargaining days have been scheduled.

Two purchasing agents in Sault Ste.

Marie grieved their surplus notices, alleging discrimination for union activity and breaches of the collective agreement's redeployment and relocation provisions.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the discrimination claim for lack of evidence.

The Board also found that the employer did not violate the surplusing provisions, as the work area for the positions was limited to the Sault Ste.

Marie district.

However, the Board held that the employer breached Appendix 13 by moving the purchasing operation's headquarters to Thunder Bay without offering the remaining full-time position to the most senior affected employee.

The grievance of the senior employee was allowed, while the junior employee's grievance was dismissed.