Paul Meier

The Association filed a grievance alleging the employer failed to accommodate the grievor's request to telework five days a week in 2024.

Prior to the hearing on the merits, the Association sought production of documents relating to the employer's handling of the grievor's previous accommodation requests between 2018 and 2023.

The employer objected, arguing the documents were irrelevant and barred by the Board's three-year rule.

The Arbitrator dismissed the request for production, finding that the historical documents were not arguably relevant to the specific 2024 decision made by a different manager, and lacked a clear nexus to the positions in dispute.

The Employer brought a motion to strike portions of the Union's Statement of Particulars in a grievance arbitration, arguing that allegations dating back to 2011 violated the Board's 'three-year rule'.

The Union argued the rule breached natural justice or, alternatively, that exceptions should apply due to the grievor's fear of reprisal.

The Arbitrator upheld the validity of the three-year rule, finding it consistent with natural justice and the expedited arbitration process.

The Arbitrator struck the particulars relating to the alleged 2011 co-worker prank and subsequent ostracization due to the extreme delay and prejudice to the Employer.

However, the Arbitrator allowed evidence regarding the supervisor's 2011 response to the prank, finding it relevant to establishing the origins of the alleged recent pattern of harassment.

During a grievance arbitration, the parties held a conference call to discuss issues regarding the production of the grievor's medical records.

The parties agreed to terms for the production of files from several doctors and requested that the agreement be issued as a consent order.

The Arbitrator issued the consent order, requiring the union to make best efforts to produce the specified medical records by October 31, 2025, subject to certain conditions regarding confidentiality and relevance.

The Union filed group grievances challenging the Employer's new requirement that Employment Standards Officers work in-person a minimum of three days per week, limiting remote work to two days.

The Union argued this was an unreasonable workplace rule under the KVP standard, while the Employer maintained it was an unfettered exercise of management rights.

The Arbitrator dismissed the grievances, finding that even if the KVP reasonableness standard applied, the three-day in-person requirement was reasonable as it was rationally connected to the Employer's legitimate business objectives of ensuring consistency across regions and fostering team culture, belonging, and mentorship.

The Union filed grievances on behalf of 28 Integrated Resource Management Technical Specialists, challenging the Employer's creation of temporary Resource Management Coordinator positions at a higher classification.

The Employer raised preliminary objections, arguing the grievances were disguised classification grievances outside the Board's jurisdiction and that the Union improperly expanded the scope of the grievances at arbitration.

The Arbitrator agreed, finding that the Union's new allegations of bad faith and arbitrary exercise of management rights were an impermissible expansion of the original grievances.

Furthermore, the core of the original grievances required comparing duties and determining proper classification, which falls outside the Board's jurisdiction under the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act and the collective agreement.

The grievances were dismissed.

The Grievor, a correctional officer, alleged that a co-worker made an offensive comment suggesting she was bringing contraband into the facility.

She filed an internal complaint and a WDHP complaint, both of which were investigated but not substantiated as harassment.

The Union grieved the Employer's response.

At the close of the Union's case, the Employer brought a non-suit motion.

The Arbitrator granted the motion, finding no prima facie case that the Employer failed to respond appropriately or that the single comment constituted racial harassment, especially since the Grievor did not raise race as a factor until after the WDHP process concluded.

The Union filed grievances alleging that the Employer violated the collective agreement, community escort agreements, and the Provincial Overtime Protocol by assigning 'secure-to-secure' inmate transfer work to correctional officers from institutions other than the one where the inmate was originally housed.

The Arbitrator dismissed the grievances, finding that an inmate being transferred is not in the custody of either the sending or receiving institution, but rather in the custody of the transferring officers.

The Arbitrator concluded that the Employer's management right to assign transfer work to any correctional institution is unfettered by the escort agreements, the overtime protocol, or the correctional officer job description.

The Union filed three grievances alleging the Employer breached paragraphs 7, 8, and 9 of the 2007 GUDA MOS.

The parties requested a consent order to resolve the issues concerning paragraphs 8 and 9.

The Arbitrator issued the consent order declaring that the Employer ought to have met with the Joint Insurance Benefit Review Committee to discuss potential options concerning a contribution holiday before making its determination, and ought to have provided semi-annual financial statements within 120 days following the reporting periods.

The Arbitrator remained seized of the outstanding issue regarding paragraph 7.

The Union filed grievances on behalf of two Correctional Officers with medical restrictions, alleging the Employer breached its duty to accommodate by bypassing them for overtime opportunities on the night shift.

The Union argued the Employer should have accommodated the grievors by assigning them on an over-complement basis or by bundling duties to create viable overtime shifts.

The Arbitrator dismissed the grievances, finding that the Employer properly applied the Provincial Overtime Protocol, which included a mechanism for switching assignments to accommodate restrictions.

The Arbitrator held that the duty to accommodate does not require an employer to assign unproductive work or to create above-complement positions, particularly at premium overtime rates.

The parties mediated a grievance alleging a violation of Appendix COR 14 of the OPSEU Correctional Bargaining Unit Collective Agreement regarding the implementation of an Occupational Stress Injury module within a training program.

The parties agreed to a consent order wherein the employer acknowledged contravening the collective agreement by failing to provide the OSI Sub-Committee an opportunity to review the training content and provide feedback prior to implementation.

The consent order requires the employer to comply with the collective agreement for any future modifications to the module.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss two union grievances related to COVID-19 workplace safety at a correctional institute for failing to disclose a prima facie case.

The first grievance alleged the employer violated the collective agreement and the Occupational Health and Safety Act by holding a staff appreciation drop-in event in March 2020.

The arbitrator dismissed this grievance, finding the union's particulars lacked facts showing the event was actually unsafe.

The second grievance alleged the employer circumvented the Joint Health and Safety Committee (JHSC) by shifting health and safety responsibilities to an employer-controlled committee.

The arbitrator dismissed the employer's motion regarding the second grievance, finding it arguable that the statutory duty to take every reasonable precaution could require scheduling more frequent JHSC meetings during a pandemic.

The union filed four grievances relating to health and safety concerns at a correctional facility during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic.

In each case, the union had previously sought an order from a Ministry of Labour inspector under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, but the inspector declined to make an order.

Instead of appealing the inspectors' decisions to the Ontario Labour Relations Board, the union filed grievances.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the grievances.

The arbitrator granted the motion, finding that the grievances constituted an improper collateral attack on the inspectors' decisions and were barred by issue estoppel, as the union had chosen the statutory enforcement route and failed to exhaust its appeal rights.

The Employer raised two preliminary objections to a grievance alleging a failure to accommodate the grievor on the basis of family status.

First, the Employer argued the grievance was barred by a prior Minutes of Settlement.

The Arbitrator dismissed this objection, finding the settlement release was explicitly limited to claims arising up to the date it was signed, whereas the current grievance concerned subsequent accommodation requests.

Second, the Employer argued the Union's particulars regarding denied compassionate care leave improperly expanded the grievance.

The Arbitrator dismissed this objection as well, finding the leave denials were cited as examples of the ongoing failure to accommodate and flowed directly from the core allegations in the grievance.

The Grievance Settlement Board previously ordered that any grievors who did not respond to the Union's request for information by October 4, 2023, would have their grievances dismissed.

Several grievors failed to respond by the deadline.

Consequently, the arbitrator dismissed their respective grievances and remained seized of the remaining grievances.

The union grieved the employer's decision to limit remote work to a maximum of three days per week upon the return to the workplace following the COVID-19 pandemic.

The union argued this blanket rule violated the collective agreement by fettering the discretion of local managers to approve alternative work arrangements (AWAs) for up to four days of remote work, which had been the previously announced office standard.

The arbitrator found that while establishing an office standard is a valid exercise of management rights, the employer's memos effectively directed managers not to consider requests for AWAs in excess of the three-day remote work standard.

This constituted an improper fettering of the managers' obligation under the collective agreement to consider AWA requests in good faith.

The grievance was allowed, and the employer was ordered to advise managers to consider such requests in good faith, though the arbitrator declined to order the implementation of a four-day remote work standard.

The Union filed multiple grievances alleging that the Employer violated the collective agreement by failing to compensate employees for lost overtime and holiday pay opportunities while they were required to self-isolate due to COVID-19.

The Union also claimed entitlement to pandemic-related monetary payments, including Short-Term Sickness Plan top-ups and Coronavirus Leave Paid.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievances, finding no clear language in the collective agreement requiring payment for overtime or holiday premiums when employees could not attend work.

The Board also held it lacked jurisdiction to review the Employer's administration of the Coronavirus Leave Paid program, as it was established outside the collective agreement.

The parties met to discuss the efficient litigation of a complicated policy grievance involving benefit claims and the interplay between the collective agreement and the insurer's plan documents.

The parties agreed to bifurcate individual remedial claims from the hearing on the merits and established a timeline for the employer to provide a draft agreed statement of facts and a 'will say' statement from any Canada Life witness.

The employer brought a motion arguing that the substance of the grievance fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB).

The grievor alleged improper payment by the employer relating to a Partial Loss of Earnings award from the WSIB, which was paid out while the grievor used annual credits to remain on the employer's payroll.

The arbitrator found that the essential character of the dispute related to the calculation of WSIB benefits, not an error in the employer's payroll.

The grievance was dismissed as the matter fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the WSIB.

The Employer requested an order that any grievors who do not respond to the Union's request for information by October 4, 2023, will have their grievances dismissed.

The Union did not oppose the request.

The Grievance Settlement Board granted the order on consent, appending a list of the affected grievances.

The parties agreed to consolidate multiple grievances under a single lead file number.

The arbitrator ordered the consolidation on consent and noted they were not seized of the matter.