26 total
Employer's unilateral decision to stop granting compensating time off in lieu of overtime pay upheld.
The Union filed policy grievances alleging the Employer violated the collective agreement by unilaterally deciding to no longer agree to requests for compensating time off (CTO) in lieu of overtime pay for correctional officers.
The Union argued this undermined local bargaining, breached local agreements, and had a discriminatory effect on employees with family responsibilities.
The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievances, finding that the collective agreement required mutual agreement for CTO, and the Employer was entitled to withhold its consent for legitimate business reasons, namely reducing overtime costs.
The Board found no prima facie discrimination on the basis of family status, as employees had not requested formal accommodation.
The grievances were allowed only to the extent that the Employer breached notice provisions in any local agreements.
Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to attend scheduled summary hearing.
The respondent requested a summary hearing to determine if the application should be dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.
The applicant requested an adjournment, which was denied.
At the scheduled in-person summary hearing, the applicant's representative appeared but the applicant did not, and the representative could not explain the absence.
The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.
Fixed-Term employees are entitled to remedial compensation for breaches of the Provincial Overtime Protocol.
The Union filed a grievance alleging the Employer violated the Collective Agreement and the Provincial Overtime Protocol by refusing to compensate Fixed-Term employees for missed overtime opportunities.
The Employer argued that under the Collective Agreement, Fixed-Term employees are not entitled to be paid for a breach of the overtime protocol.
The Grievance Settlement Board found that the Protocol applies to both Regular and Fixed-Term employees and does not distinguish between them regarding remedies for a breach.
The Board held that Fixed-Term employees are entitled to remedial relief if a violation of the Protocol occurs.
Employer's proactive obtaining of CPIC checks on inspectors without consent violated privacy rights and management rights.
The Union filed a policy grievance alleging that the Employer violated privacy legislation and the Collective Agreement by proactively obtaining Canada Police Information Centre (CPIC) checks on Occupational Health and Safety Inspectors without their consent.
The Employer argued that the checks were necessary to fulfill its disclosure obligations under the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in R. v. McNeil.
The Grievance Settlement Board held that McNeil did not compel the Crown to proactively obtain third-party CPIC information without consent, noting that privacy interests must be balanced and that the O'Connor process is available for third-party records.
The Board declared that the Employer's broad approach did not accord with an appropriate exercise of management rights and allowed the grievance.
Employer's minor breach of settlement agreement warrants declaration but no damages for mental distress.
The union alleged that the employer breached a settlement agreement requiring it to deliver job vacancy information to the grievor's home via courier on a weekly basis.
The grievor, who was on long-term disability and unable to return to work, sought $70,000 in damages for mental distress.
The Grievance Settlement Board found that the employer had failed to deliver the materials on 2 to 4 occasions out of over 100 deliveries, constituting a minor breach.
The Board issued a declaration of the breach but declined to award damages, finding no concrete economic loss or significant psychological harm.
The Board also declined the employer's request to be relieved of its ongoing delivery obligations, emphasizing the sanctity of settlement agreements.
Union's request for voluminous production of prosecution details denied as irrelevant to the core legal issue.
In a policy grievance concerning the application of the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in R. v. McNeil to enforcement officers, the Union sought production of a list of all prosecutions from all Enforcement Ministries since January 2009, detailing whether CPIC checks or discipline disclosures were requested for lead officers.
The Employer opposed the request as a fishing expedition that would require creating documents and argued the information was irrelevant to the core issue of whether McNeil applies at all.
The Grievance Settlement Board denied the production request, finding that the voluminous detailed information sought would not assist in determining the legal issue of whether McNeil creates an obligation for the Enforcement Ministries.
Employer's request to adjourn grievance hearing pending judicial review of related decision dismissed.
The Employer requested an adjournment of the grievance hearing pending the outcome of a judicial review of a related Grievance Settlement Board decision (the Monk decision) regarding the Board's jurisdiction to award damages for a workplace injury under the health and safety provision of the collective agreement.
The Union opposed the adjournment, arguing it would cause considerable delay and prejudice.
The Vice-Chair dismissed the Employer's request, finding that the balancing of interests favoured proceeding with the hearing, as an adjournment would result in significant delay and the Union was seeking additional remedies not affected by the pending judicial review.
Employer ordered to produce consented disclosure documents and advise on remaining requests by specified date.
The Union requested disclosure of documents and particulars relating to the MOL Interim Protocol and McNeil disclosure.
The Employer consented to producing certain documents by October 26, 2010, subject to solicitor-client privilege concerns, and undertook to seek instructions on the remaining requests.
The Board ordered the Employer to advise the Union of its position by October 26, 2010, with a conference call to be convened if the parties cannot resolve the remaining issues.
Document exchange ordered in union grievance regarding overtime distribution to correctional officers.
The union filed a grievance regarding the proper payment of overtime to certain correctional officers.
The Grievance Settlement Board issued a procedural order directing the parties to exchange all documents relating to the distribution of overtime to unclassified/fixed term employees under the provincial overtime protocol by specified dates.
Parties agreed to refer accommodation of surplus employees in redeployment to CERC for resolution.
The Grievance Settlement Board issued a brief decision noting the parties' agreement that there is an obligation to consider the accommodation needs of surplus employees in the redeployment process.
The parties agreed to refer the implementation of this obligation to the Central Employee Relations Committee (CERC) and/or its subcommittees to be dealt with on a substantive basis within 18 months.
Grievances allowed; ODSP and MOR positions do not require security checks under the screening policy.
The Union and the Association grieved the Employer's decision to subject certain positions within the Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP) and the Ministry of Revenue (MOR) to security checks under the Ontario Public Service Personnel Screening Checks Policy.
The Employer argued the checks were necessary due to the positions' access to highly sensitive, confidential, and personal information, including federal tax and benefit databases.
The Grievance Settlement Board allowed the grievances, finding that while the information accessed by these positions is confidential, it does not constitute 'highly sensitive information and/or assets' as contemplated by the Policy and its Threat Risk Assessment guidelines, which were intended for positions with access to identity documents, cheque writing machines, or information whose misuse could cause massive financial or political harm.
Interim relief to stop CPIC checks on inspectors denied; administration of justice outweighs privacy concerns.
The Union sought interim relief to prevent the Employer from obtaining and disclosing CPIC checks on Health and Safety Inspectors without their consent, arguing it violated privacy rights.
The Employer contended the checks were necessary to fulfill its disclosure obligations under the McNeil decision for regulatory prosecutions.
The Grievance Settlement Board held that, on an interim basis, the interests of the administration of justice outweighed the privacy concerns, but ordered procedural safeguards including notice to the Inspectors.
The Board also dismissed the Union's request for production of the Employer's legal opinion, finding that solicitor-client privilege had not been waived.
Union directed to provide further and better particulars of its grievance claim.
In a grievance arbitration, the employer brought a motion asserting that certain particulars provided by the union should be struck because they related to events that transpired long before the grievance was filed, or alternatively, that they failed to disclose the nature and substance of the claim.
The Grievance Settlement Board agreed that the particulars were insufficient.
The Board directed the union to provide full particulars of its claim regarding specific paragraphs, failing which those paragraphs would be struck.
The employer's argument regarding timeliness was deferred until the further particulars were provided.
Union directed to produce physician for cross-examination and provide clinical notes if relying on medical reports.
In a grievance arbitration, the union provided medical reports it intended to rely upon.
The employer requested that the physician who prepared the reports be made available for cross-examination and that the physician's clinical notes and relied-upon documents be produced.
The Grievance Settlement Board directed the union to facilitate the physician's attendance and the production of the requested documents if it intended to rely on the reports.
Interim relief granted to prevent employer from requiring fingerprints for security clearances pending grievance resolution.
The bargaining agents sought interim relief against the Employer's new practice of requiring employees to provide fingerprints to obtain criminal record information following a 'hit' on a CPIC check.
The change was prompted by a new RCMP directive.
The bargaining agents argued this violated the collective agreement and the agreed-upon Personnel Screening Checks Policy, which stated fingerprints would only be required as a last resort.
The Grievance Settlement Board granted partial interim relief, ordering that employees with a 'hit' not be asked to provide fingerprints, but allowing the Employer to temporarily modify their duties or reassign them without loss of pay pending the resolution of the grievance.
Interim relief granted to halt personnel screening checks pending resolution of grievance.
AMAPCEO sought interim relief to prevent the Ministry of Revenue from conducting personnel screening checks on approximately 214 members pending the resolution of a grievance.
The screening checks were initiated to comply with Canada Revenue Agency requirements for accessing taxpayer information.
The Grievance Settlement Board granted the interim order, finding that AMAPCEO raised an arguable case and that the balance of convenience favoured protecting the employees' privacy interests, which could not be effectively remedied retroactively, over the Employer's implementation timeline.
Board orders production of anonymized examples of relevant documents from training materials or client files.
In a grievance arbitration, the Grievance Settlement Board issued a production order requiring the parties to attempt to identify anonymized examples of relevant documents from training materials.
If unable to do so, the Employer was ordered to identify and disclose anonymized examples from client files, including database screen shots, to be maintained securely to prevent unauthorized disclosure.
Grievor holding two separate government positions entitled to ESA severance pay for closed position.
The grievor sought severance pay under the Employment Standards Act and benefits under a Memorandum of Agreement following the closure of the Rideau Regional Centre.
The grievor held an unclassified on-call contract at the closed facility while simultaneously holding a separate part-time classified position with another ministry.
The arbitrator held that the grievor was not entitled to benefits under the Memorandum of Agreement because she did not exit the Ontario Public Service.
However, resolving an ambiguity in the Employment Standards Act, the arbitrator found the grievor was entitled to severance pay for the loss of the unclassified position, subject to potential regulatory exemptions.
Policy grievance regarding ministry specific knowledge for direct assignments dismissed; case-by-case analysis required.
The Association filed a policy grievance alleging that the employer contravened the collective agreement by requiring ministry specific knowledge when matching surplussed employees for direct assignment to vacant positions.
The Association argued that such requirements constituted unacceptable employment barriers inconsistent with the 'entry level qualifications' standard.
The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the policy grievance, finding that while ministry specific knowledge generally appears inconsistent with the requirement to recognize transferable skills, it could not conclude that such knowledge could never be a legitimate entry level qualification for any position.
The Board held that such determinations must be made on a case-by-case basis with evidence regarding the specific duties and responsibilities of the position in question.
Interim relief granted to halt implementation of new employee security checks pending merits hearing.
The bargaining agents (AMAPCEO and OPSEU) sought interim relief to prevent the Employer from implementing new security checks for employees involved in the Enhanced Driver's Licence program, pending a challenge to the validity of the checks.
The new checks, required by the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative, included criminal, credit, and CSIS checks.
The Grievance Settlement Board granted the interim relief, finding that the balance of convenience favored the bargaining agents because the incursions on privacy could not be reversed if the unions ultimately prevailed, whereas the public could still use passports to cross the border if the program was delayed.
