Carol Ann Witt

The complainant, an Operational Manager, filed a grievance alleging the employer breached his employment contract by treating him unfairly and arbitrarily in its handling of a subordinate's harassment complaints and grievances against him.

The employer settled the subordinate's grievances by reassigning the complainant without providing him timely notice of the allegations or an opportunity to respond.

The complainant subsequently left the workplace due to the resulting poisoned work environment and stress.

The Public Service Grievance Board found the employer breached its duty of fairness and acted arbitrarily.

The Board awarded the complainant compensation for lost overtime and pay-for-performance, as well as $5,000 in damages for mental distress resulting from the breach of procedural fairness provisions in his employment contract.

The grievor, a correctional officer, was terminated for using excessive force against an inmate, submitting an inaccurate occurrence report, and violating the Statement of Ethical Principles.

The incident involved three phases, culminating in the grievor delivering a distractive strike to the inmate's head while the inmate was restrained on the ground by several other officers.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the grievor was the aggressor, the force used was excessive and unauthorized, and his occurrence report was deliberately incomplete and inaccurate.

The termination grievance was dismissed.

A separate grievance regarding unreasonable delay in the investigation process was partially allowed, with the grievor awarded compensation for one month of delay.

The complainant filed a grievance alleging that his performance appraisal and the subsequent denial of merit pay, which relied on a prior letter of reprimand, were too harsh.

The employer brought a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction under s. 4(2) of Regulation 378/07, which prohibits complaints about performance evaluations and compensation based on performance.

The complainant argued that relying on the reprimand for the appraisal amounted to double jeopardy.

The Board held that it lacked jurisdiction, finding that the denial of a merit increase is an administrative decision and does not constitute a second discipline for the same offence.

The grievance was dismissed.

The Union alleged that the Employer failed to comply with a Memorandum of Settlement regarding a letter of reference.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the letter of reference provided by the Employer met its obligations under the Memorandum of Settlement.

The grievor, a hot-line operator with 22 years of service, was discharged for conflict of interest and misuse of government property.

The employer discovered she was operating a retail store using the Ministry's corporate credit card to purchase inventory, accumulating nearly $13,000 in unpaid charges.

Investigations also revealed she used the Ministry's telephone system extensively for her business, worked at her store while on paid short-term sick leave, and used Ministry computers for business purposes.

The Grievance Settlement Board found the grievor blatantly misused employer resources to derive an advantage for her outside business, violating conflict of interest regulations.

The grievance was dismissed and the discharge upheld.

The union brought grievances on behalf of unclassified court reporters and clerks, asserting they were improperly denied conversion to full-time status.

The parties submitted three questions for determination regarding the interpretation of the collective agreement's conversion provisions.

The arbitrator held that the employer is not required to pool the hours of unclassified employees to fulfill the conversion requirements, as the agreement applies to individual employees.

Regarding 'same work,' the arbitrator found that working under multiple contracts or in different locations does not necessarily sever the sameness of the work, but different classifications generally do.

Finally, the arbitrator determined that only the leaves of absence explicitly listed in the collective agreement for unclassified employees count as 'authorized leaves' for calculating conversion hours.

The union filed numerous grievances challenging the employer's implementation of its 'underfill' policy for the Transportation Enforcement Officer classification series, where less qualified applicants were hired and paid at a lower rate until fully qualified.

The parties reached a settlement on a go-forward protocol but could not agree on compensation for the grievors.

The arbitrator directed the employer to pay $1,000 to each of the grievors listed in the appendix.

The Union grieved the discharge of a hotline operator who was terminated for an alleged conflict of interest involving her ownership of a retail store.

During the investigation, the Employer used videotape surveillance to observe the grievor working at her store while she was on sick leave.

The Union objected to the admissibility of the surveillance evidence, arguing it was an unreasonable intrusion into the grievor's privacy.

The Grievance Settlement Board applied a two-part test and found that the Employer had reasonable cause to suspect a conflict of interest and misuse of sick leave, making the decision to undertake surveillance reasonable.

The evidence was ruled admissible.

The union grieved the employer's interpretation of Article 20.4.1.5 of the collective agreement regarding displacement rights for a surplussed employee.

The employer argued that the employee could only bump into a position if they had gained the required experience within 40km of their home position.

The Grievance Settlement Board agreed with the union, declaring that while the displacement position must be within 40km, the experience required for that position could have been obtained either within or beyond the 40km radius.

The union filed a grievance challenging the employer's universal application of a collective agreement provision requiring all employees at the Toronto Jail to provide a medical certificate for every sick leave absence.

The employer admitted at the hearing that this universal application violated the collective agreement, which required an individual suspicion of abuse, but argued the grievance was moot because the practice had ceased.

The arbitrator held the issue was not moot because compensation for affected employees had not been fully resolved, and issued a declaration that the universal application violated the collective agreement.

The union alleged that the employer breached a Memorandum of Settlement by requiring the grievor to report to a specific manager, contrary to an oral assurance given during mediation.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the Board lacked jurisdiction because the written settlement did not mention the reporting relationship.

The Board upheld the preliminary objection, finding that its jurisdiction was limited to the implementation and interpretation of the written terms of the settlement, and dismissed the grievance.

The union filed a grievance alleging that the grievor was temporarily assigned to perform the duties of a higher classification in violation of the collective agreement.

The employer raised a preliminary objection, arguing that the grievance was a disguised classification grievance over which the Grievance Settlement Board lacked jurisdiction.

The Vice-Chair agreed with the employer, finding that the grievor's ongoing concern was that his regular assignments constituted the work of a higher classification, rather than a temporary change in duties.

As the collective agreement and the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act reserve classification disputes for the Joint System Subcommittee, the preliminary motion was granted and the grievance was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of an abatement officer who was unsuccessful in a job competition for an investigations officer position.

The union alleged the interview process was fundamentally flawed because it overvalued generic investigative techniques and undervalued substantive environmental knowledge.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the interview questions disproportionately emphasized investigative process, failing to adequately test environmental knowledge as required by the position specification.

Furthermore, the selection panel relied on an erroneous impression of the grievor's past performance without checking his personnel file or performance appraisals, which would have confirmed his competence.

The Board declared the job competition fatally flawed, allowed the grievance, and ordered that the grievor be awarded the next comparable position with full compensation for monetary losses.

The grievor, a full-time employee working part-time hours under an accommodated work plan due to a disability, was denied paid sick leave because she did not work twenty consecutive days as required by the collective agreement.

The union grieved, arguing she met the requirement or, alternatively, that denying her sick leave violated the Ontario Human Rights Code.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that while the grievor did not meet the strict collective agreement requirement for full-time employees, applying that requirement to her constituted discrimination based on handicap.

The Board held that for the purposes of sick leave, the grievor must be compared to regular part-time employees and earn sick leave in proportion to the hours she worked.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued a clarification of its May 15, 2000 decision regarding a union grievance.

The employer asserted that Articles 32, 36, and 39 of the collective agreement fell under the general exemption set out in paragraph 3 of the previous decision.

The Vice Chair consulted his notes and recollection from the first day of hearing and confirmed that Articles 32, 36, and 39 were intended to form part of the exemption of coverage for the affected employees.

The applicants filed an application against Maplehurst Corrections Centre and the Ministry of Labour.

On agreement of the parties, the Ontario Labour Relations Board consented to adjourn the application sine die for a period not exceeding one year, to allow the parties to discuss the subject matter at an upcoming meeting.

The Union filed a policy grievance alleging the employer failed to fill permanent positions for Community Patrol Officers and Dispatchers.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the employer to make 28 permanent full-time appointments for Community Patrol Officers and five for Dispatchers, to be filled by individuals currently working in those positions on a full-time contract basis.

The grievor sought indemnification for legal fees incurred in a workplace-related litigious matter.

The employer objected to the Grievance Settlement Board's jurisdiction, arguing that the collective agreement contained no provision for legal indemnification and that reimbursement was solely at the Deputy Minister's discretion under a Ministry policy.

The Vice Chair dismissed the grievance for lack of jurisdiction, noting the absence of a collective agreement right and the lack of any allegation that the policy was administered in an arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad faith manner.