47 total
Employer ordered to produce documents relating to secondment agreements and compliance with minutes of settlement.
The union brought a motion seeking damages for non-compliance with minutes of settlement and requested an order for the production of documents.
The employer did not oppose the request.
The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the employer to produce all documents concerning its relationship with two individuals, including secondment agreements and documents related to termination and classified positions.
Grievance dismissed; LTIP Plan found to be a contract of indemnity conferring subrogation rights.
The union filed a grievance concerning whether the Long Term Income Protection (LTIP) Plan provided a right of subrogation to the employer.
The collective agreement and the LTIP Plan were silent on subrogation, requiring an analysis under common law principles of insurance.
The arbitrator reviewed extensive caselaw to determine if the LTIP Plan was a contract of indemnity.
Finding that the Plan required proof of loss and contained reduction clauses designed to avoid double recovery, the arbitrator concluded it was a contract of partial indemnity.
Consequently, the employer has an equitable right of subrogation, and the grievance was dismissed.
Union policy grievances naming entire Ministries dismissed as not permitted under the Bargaining Unit Integrity Protocol.
The Union filed twenty-three policy grievances under the Bargaining Unit Integrity (BUI) Protocol, each naming an entire Ministry.
The Employer objected, arguing the Protocol did not contemplate grievances framed so broadly, as it would make the required disclosure obligations impossible to meet within the stipulated six-week timeframe.
The Grievance Settlement Board agreed with the Employer, finding that the language of the Protocol, which refers to 'units, branches, departments, or offices', indicates an intention to identify areas smaller than a Ministry to ensure the process can be managed efficiently.
The grievances were dismissed.
Board amends previous order regarding employer's obligation to provide lists of non-employees.
The Grievance Settlement Board issued an order amending a previous order dated January 16, 2007, regarding a policy grievance by AMAPCEO.
The amendment requires the Employer to provide an updated list of all persons not formally designated as employees who regularly attend at employer-controlled sites for more than ninety days, specifying how the total number of days is calculated.
Board issued directions for hearings and document production regarding employer's alleged failure to implement settlements.
The Association alleged that the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care failed to implement the terms of several settlements, some of which were the subject of a prior consent order.
The Grievance Settlement Board issued directions scheduling hearings to address the alleged non-compliance and ordered the employer to produce relevant documents concerning the posting and filling of positions, termination of non-public servants, and conversion of positions.
Union's request for disclosure of documents beyond the grievors' personnel files denied.
In an arbitration regarding the transfer of employees from a private contractor to the Ontario Public Service, the Union sought disclosure of documents relating to IT abuse investigations of other employees and former employer policies.
The Employer objected, arguing the Union was attempting to go behind the record.
The Grievance Settlement Board denied the Union's request, finding that under the Transfer Agreement, the Employer was only entitled to review the employees' personnel files to determine if there was 'significant substantiated discipline', and the Board would not broaden the scope of the screening process.
Employer ordered to offer employment to two transferred workers as prior discipline was not significant.
The Union grieved the Employer's failure to offer employment to two former employees of a sub-contractor following the transfer of operations of the Central North Correctional Centre to the Ontario Public Service.
The Employer had denied the offers based on the employees' prior disciplinary records, which included warnings for sleeping on the job and a suspension for reporting to work after consuming alcohol.
The arbitrator found that the disciplinary records were either not significant enough or too stale-dated to justify denying the job offers under the terms of the Memorandum of Agreement.
The Employer was ordered to provide job offers to both employees.
Disclosure of documents ordered subject to a confidentiality proviso.
The Union requested disclosure of certain previously requested documents.
The Grievance Settlement Board issued an oral ruling ordering the disclosure of the documents, subject to a proviso that the material disclosed would not be utilized by the Union or its representatives for any purpose other than for this matter.
The Employer requested that the order be reduced to writing, which the Board provided in this decision.
Specific screening criteria in a transition agreement fettered the employer's normal broad discretion to hire.
The government of Ontario took over the operations of the Central North Correctional Centre from a private contractor.
The parties negotiated a Memorandum of Agreement to facilitate the transition and hiring of the contractor's employees.
The union grieved the employer's hiring decisions, arguing the Memorandum fettered the employer's normal broad discretion to hire.
The Grievance Settlement Board held that the specific screening criteria in the Memorandum of Agreement restricted the employer's usual management rights regarding hiring, as finding otherwise would render the negotiated provisions meaningless.
Pre-hearing document production request granted subject to confidentiality conditions.
The Association requested pre-hearing production of materials relating to education officers in the Ministry of Education and consultants in the Government Services Delivery Cluster at the Ministry of Government Services.
The Grievance Settlement Board granted the requests on the condition that the materials be used exclusively for the proceeding and handled only by authorized individuals involved in the litigation.
Employer directed to produce consultant emails and FTE allotment documents in policy grievance.
The Association requested production of materials relating to consultants engaged by the Government Services Delivery Cluster at the Ministry of Government Services.
The employer resisted producing emails sent or received by the consultants during specific periods, as well as documents relating to the FTE allotment for the Cluster.
The Grievance Settlement Board directed the employer to produce the materials, finding them arguably relevant to the issues raised by the policy grievance.
Supplementary order issued amending disclosure timelines to address employer non-compliance in policy grievance.
The Grievance Settlement Board issued a supplementary order amending a previous order regarding disclosure timelines in a policy grievance.
The amendment was intended to address occasions when the employer failed to comply with the timeline for disclosure.
The Board established a revised schedule for identifying divisions, providing disclosure, and holding meetings, and directed that any expected failure to meet time limits must be communicated and resolved by agreement or by the Vice-Chair.
Procedural order issued setting schedule for disclosure and mediation/arbitration in policy grievance regarding employee status.
The union requested the reinstitution of the hearing process for a policy grievance concerning whether certain persons performing bargaining unit work should be characterized as employees.
The Vice-Chair issued a procedural order setting out a schedule for mediation/arbitration dates, updated disclosure requirements for the employer, and a process for the parties to state their positions and meet to narrow the issues in dispute.
Requests by a previously denied service provider to make submissions on standing and reconsideration dismissed.
In a bargaining unit integrity grievance, the Union claimed that services provided by Native Inmate Liaison Officers constituted bargaining unit work.
A service provider, White Buffalo Road Healing Lodge Inc., previously denied intervener status, requested the opportunity to make submissions regarding another union's motion for standing and to reconsider its own standing.
The Grievance Settlement Board denied the requests, noting that no one appeared on behalf of White Buffalo at the hearing, it lacked standing as a non-party, and the Board does not have the statutory power to reconsider its decisions.
Service providers denied intervener status in union grievance over bargaining unit work.
The Union filed a bargaining unit integrity grievance alleging that the Employer violated the collective agreement by using fee-for-service Native Inmate Liaison Officers (NILOs) to perform bargaining unit work.
Several Service Providers who employ the NILOs sought intervener status in the arbitration.
The Grievance Settlement Board denied the request, finding that the Service Providers' interest was merely indirect and contingent on their commercial contracts with the Employer.
Because the core dispute concerned whether the work belonged to the bargaining unit, the Service Providers lacked the direct interest in labour or employment law required to justify third-party standing.
Grievance alleging health and safety violations due to excessive overtime and understaffing at a jail dismissed.
The union filed a grievance alleging that the employer violated Article 9.1 of the collective agreement by failing to make reasonable provisions for the health and safety of employees at the Toronto Jail.
The union argued that inmate overcrowding and staff shortages led to excessive overtime, which created health and safety risks, including job strain and effort-reward imbalance.
The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that the union's expert evidence on job strain was unreliable due to potential selection and reporting biases.
The arbitrator also concluded that the literature did not support a causal relationship between long work hours and adverse health outcomes, and that the employer's reliance on voluntary overtime did not constitute a failure to make reasonable provisions for health and safety.
Employer ordered to top up LTIP benefits where its harassment and delay caused grievor's disability.
In a third implementation decision following a finding of workplace harassment and discrimination, the Grievance Settlement Board addressed outstanding compensation issues.
The employer was ordered to pay previously awarded statutory holiday and overtime pay within 30 days.
The Board found the union's claim for lost shift premiums was not barred by delay.
Crucially, the Board rejected the employer's argument that the grievor's ongoing disability should be handled exclusively through the WSIB or standard LTIP without top-up.
Finding that the employer's conduct and delay in remediating the workplace caused the grievor's inability to work, the Board ordered the employer to top up the grievor's LTIP benefits to her regular salary to make her whole.
Board affirms jurisdiction to order discipline of managers for sexual harassment but declines termination here.
The union filed grievances alleging sexual harassment by a managerial employee and sought his termination or reassignment.
The parties agreed to a preliminary procedure to determine three issues based on assumed facts.
The Grievance Settlement Board held that the union's pleadings disclosed a prima facie case of sexual harassment.
The Board further affirmed its jurisdiction to direct the employer to discipline or discharge a managerial employee in exceptional cases where absolutely necessary to effect a remedy.
However, the Board concluded that while the primary remedy of termination was not absolutely necessary in this case, the alternative remedies of removing the manager's supervisory powers or reassigning him might be appropriate.
Employer directed to comply with production order and state positions on disputed bargaining unit exclusions.
The Grievance Settlement Board issued directions regarding a policy grievance concerning document disclosure and bargaining unit exclusions.
The employer was ordered to comply with a previous production order for specific positions at the Ministry of Health, regardless of contentions that the positions involved work done by OPSEU members or ceased to exist.
The employer was also directed to state its position on whether disputed positions involved AMAPCEO work and whether the individuals were employees or excluded from the bargaining unit.
Employer ordered to produce contracts and job specifications to determine individuals' bargaining unit status.
The union sought a further order for the production of documents relating to individuals engaged by the Ministry of Health who are not formally classified as public servants, to determine if they belong in the bargaining unit.
The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the employer to produce contracts, secondment agreements, or job specifications for the disputed individuals by April 26, 2004, unless the employer concedes they are members of the bargaining unit.
