10 total
Parental leave under the Employment Standards Act must be taken in a single continuous period.
The Union filed a policy grievance arguing that under the collective agreement and the Employment Standards Act, 2000, an employee is entitled to split their parental leave into multiple periods, provided the total does not exceed the maximum statutory entitlement.
The Employer maintained that parental leave must be taken in one continuous period and is exhausted once the employee returns to work.
The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the statutory language and scheme of the ESA contemplate a single, continuous parental leave of absence.
Consequently, an employee who returns to work before exhausting their full entitlement cannot take a second period of parental leave with top-up benefits.
Judicial review dismissed; Board's blanket monetary remedy for breach of collective agreement seniority rights was reasonable.
The applicant sought judicial review of two awards by the Crown Employees Grievance Settlement Board regarding the divestment of young offender facilities.
The Board found the applicant breached the collective agreement by failing to require new operators to recognize employees' seniority, and awarded a blanket monetary remedy to all affected employees based on years of service.
The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the standard of review was reasonableness and that the Board's collective remedy was appropriate and reasonable in the labour relations context, despite the applicant's argument that individual losses should have been assessed.
Abuse of process doctrine bars relitigating criminal convictions in subsequent labour arbitration proceedings.
Two government employees were dismissed after being convicted of sexually assaulting people under their care.
The appellant union grieved their dismissals, and the grievance settlement board ruled that the criminal convictions were only prima facie evidence of guilt, allowing the union to lead rebuttal evidence.
The Supreme Court of Canada held that the doctrine of abuse of process bars the relitigation of the employees' guilt for the offences for which they were convicted.
The appeal was dismissed.
Employer's preliminary objections regarding Board's remedial jurisdiction dismissed as premature.
The employer raised preliminary objections regarding the Grievance Settlement Board's jurisdiction to make determinations about Orders-in-Council, classifications, and management/excluded employees in a policy grievance concerning the interpretation of a recognition clause.
The Board dismissed the preliminary objections as premature, finding that defining the scope of remedial authority at this stage would not narrow the evidence or shorten the proceedings.
The employer was invited to renew its jurisdictional arguments if and when the union seeks relief that may be beyond the Board's jurisdiction.
Policy grievance dismissed; allowing some employees to re-elect did not harm those expressly denied election rights.
The union filed a policy grievance challenging the Ministry's decision to allow certain classified employees to re-elect whether to transfer to a new private service provider, while denying the same opportunity to employees converted to classified status at a later date.
The union sought a declaration that the re-election was improper and an order allowing the later-converted employees to elect.
The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that even if the re-election breached the parties' memorandum of settlement, it did not detrimentally affect the employees for whom the union sought relief, as the settlement expressly stated they had no right of election.
Union's request for an order allowing converted employees to elect transfer to new service provider denied.
The union requested an order directing the Ministry of Transportation to allow employees converted between December 1, 2002 and February 25, 2003 to elect whether to transfer to a new service provider.
The Grievance Settlement Board denied the request, noting that reasons for the decision and a ruling on the declaration sought by the union would be issued in due course.
Board issues comprehensive document production order in complex policy grievance regarding bargaining unit history.
In a complex policy grievance involving the history of collective bargaining and legislative history, the Grievance Settlement Board issued a detailed production order.
The parties were ordered to use their best efforts to locate and produce extensive documentation relating to the creation of bargaining units, classifications, and various agreements by a specified date.
The Board also ordered that no party would be permitted to rely on documents not produced by the deadline without consent or a convincing reason.
Time spent on strike does not count toward the 18-month service requirement for conversion to classified status.
The union filed a grievance regarding the conversion of unclassified driver examiners to classified status under the collective agreement.
The issue was whether the 54 days of the 2002 OPSEU strike should count toward the 18-month service requirement for conversion.
The Grievance Settlement Board held that a literal reading of the collective agreement required the performance of work, meaning the strike period did not count.
The Board also found that the employer's approach did not violate the settlement agreement or the implied prohibition against arbitrary and discriminatory treatment.
Board lacks jurisdiction over general benefit eligibility but retains concurrent jurisdiction over related human rights claims.
The grievor, who suffered a workplace injury and was later converted to classified status, was denied Long Term Income Protection (LTIP) benefits because she was unclassified at the time of her injury.
She grieved the denial and the employer's failure to pay premiums.
The employer raised a preliminary objection that the Grievance Settlement Board lacked jurisdiction, arguing the collective agreement granted exclusive jurisdiction over benefit eligibility disputes to the Joint Insurance Benefits Review Committee (JIBRC).
The union argued the denial constituted discrimination based on handicap under the collective agreement and the Human Rights Code.
The Vice-Chair held that while JIBRC has exclusive jurisdiction over general benefit eligibility claims, the Board retains concurrent jurisdiction to hear allegations of discrimination in the denial of those benefits.
Union did not breach duty of fair representation by revoking a grievance settlement it genuinely believed was bad.
The applicants, employees of General Motors, alleged that their union breached its duty of fair representation under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act by revoking a grievance settlement that would have benefited them.
The settlement, reached after a plant sale, gave certain skilled trades workers the right to return to a sold facility if laid off.
A newly elected union executive believed the settlement unfairly advantaged one classification and successfully sought the employer's consent to cancel it.
The Board dismissed the application, finding that a union may revoke a settlement with employer consent provided it does not act arbitrarily, discriminatorily, or in bad faith.
The union's genuine belief that the settlement was bad was a sufficient and non-arbitrary reason for its actions.
