24 total
Final decision confirming implementation of systemic remedies for a poisoned work environment at the Toronto Jail.
This is the final decision in a series of mediation-arbitration proceedings addressing systemic remedies for a poisoned work environment at the Toronto Jail between 2005 and 2008.
The Vice-Chair reviewed the 48 Objectives Requiring Action agreed upon by the parties to address issues of racism, harassment, and workplace culture.
The Board concluded that, subject to an ongoing challenge regarding the investigation of hate letters, all agreed actions have been successfully carried out and implemented.
Employer ordered to pay damages to correctional officers for failing to adequately address a poisoned work environment.
The union filed a policy grievance on behalf of two groups of correctional officers, alleging the employer failed to provide a workplace free from harassment and discrimination.
The workplace became poisoned due to anonymous racist and threatening hate mail, leading to severe racial divisions and a breakdown of trust among staff.
The employer admitted liability for negligence in its handling of the situation between 2005 and 2008.
The arbitrator found that while the employer did not write the letters, its response was inadequate and failed to sufficiently address the systemic issues until 2008.
The arbitrator awarded $1,500 to each affected employee in Group A and $1,000 to each affected employee in Group B for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.
Individual grievor lacks standing to unilaterally withdraw grievance where union has carriage and opposes withdrawal.
The individual grievor sought to withdraw his grievance regarding a poisoned work environment and hate mail at the Toronto Jail, intending to pursue his claims before the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.
The union and the employer opposed the withdrawal.
The Grievance Settlement Board denied the request, holding that the union has exclusive carriage of the grievance and the individual has no standing to withdraw it.
Furthermore, the request was made at an advanced stage of a comprehensive systemic remediation process, making withdrawal inappropriate and an abuse of process.
Board reviews and updates timelines for implementing remedial orders addressing workplace harassment at Toronto Jail.
The Grievance Settlement Board conducted a review of the implementation of its previous remedial orders aimed at restoring a workplace free from harassment and discrimination at the Toronto Jail.
The Board noted progress on several fronts, including the issuance of Standing Orders, management training, and the installation of security equipment.
The Board varied certain orders, establishing new deadlines for performance development plans, diversity training, and the implementation of the new Workplace Discrimination and Harassment Prevention (WDHP) policy.
The Board also clarified the role of the seconded Deputy-Superintendent in overseeing the restoration process.
Board issues updated timelines for implementing organizational objectives and training initiatives at the Toronto Jail.
The Grievance Settlement Board issued an update on the parties' organizational objectives and the implementation of agreed action plans at the Toronto Jail.
The decision outlines specific timelines and responsibilities for the Employer and the Union to complete various training initiatives, including anti-racism, conflict resolution, and human rights training, as well as policy updates regarding standing orders, dress codes, and workplace discrimination and harassment complaints.
Grievance allowed; employer directed to assign grievor to Senior Records Clerk position permanently.
The grievor requested an assignment to the position of Senior Records Clerk at the Toronto Jail pursuant to Article 8.6.3 of the Collective Agreement.
The employer denied the request, leading to a grievance.
Following a hearing, the Grievance Settlement Board directed that the grievor be assigned to the position on a permanent basis.
Hearing protocol established for poisoned work environment grievances.
The Grievance Settlement Board established a hearing protocol for several grievances alleging harm and damages from a poisoned work environment.
The protocol sets out hearing dates for Group A and Group B grievances, limits the number of individuals the Union may have present, and establishes timelines for the exchange of will-say statements and proposed monetary resolutions.
Board sets procedural rules and evidentiary limits for remaining individual grievances in mediation-arbitration.
In a mediation-arbitration process concerning grievances over a poisoned work environment, the Grievance Settlement Board issued a procedural decision for the remaining unresolved individual grievances.
Pursuant to the collective agreement, the Board imposed limitations on evidence and set conditions for the arbitration.
To avoid lengthy litigation, the Employer accepted liability for negligence solely for the purpose of these cases.
The Board established a timeline for the exchange of updated will-say statements and written particulars of remedies sought, and directed that no oral evidence would be heard unless directed by the Vice-Chair.
Board amends objectives and action plans for improving the work environment at the Toronto Jail.
The Grievance Settlement Board issued an update to its previous decisions regarding objectives and action plans to improve the work environment at the Toronto Jail.
The Board amended several objectives, including the process for the Coordinating Committee to address unresolved issues of racism, sexism, or sexual orientation, and directed the Ministry to provide written proposals regarding paid parking and managerial appointments.
The Board also updated the responsibilities for certain action plans and appointed new members to the Coordinating Committee.
Interim relief to maintain paid leave denied where employer offered reasonable accommodation at alternative work locations.
The union sought interim relief to maintain a correctional officer's paid leave of absence pending the determination of his grievance regarding a poisoned work environment.
The grievor had been on paid leave for 17 months after receiving racially-motivated hate mail.
The employer offered to accommodate the grievor at six other correctional institutions, but the grievor refused, seeking to remain on paid leave.
The Board assumed jurisdiction to grant interim relief but dismissed the application, finding that the employer's offer of alternative work locations was a reasonable accommodation and the balance of harm did not favour allowing the grievor to remain off work with pay.
Board updated action plans and objectives to address systemic issues at the Toronto Jail.
The Grievance Settlement Board issued a supplementary decision to update its previous decisions regarding systemic issues at the Toronto Jail.
The Board amended action plans and objectives, including scheduling Coordinating Committee meetings, clarifying staff rights to report wrongdoing under the Public Service of Ontario Act, 2006, and addressing racism and discrimination under the Human Rights Code.
The Vice-Chair remained seized with respect to the interpretation or implementation of the decision.
Union's motion for non-suit dismissed as employer established a prima facie case for discipline.
The union brought a motion for non-suit at the close of the employer's case regarding disciplinary issues.
The employer had presented evidence over 47 days concerning allegations that the grievor undermined a shift leader, behaved inappropriately with the public, and demonstrated a discriminatory attitude.
Applying the established principles for non-suit motions, the Vice-Chair found that the employer had presented some evidence that, left unchallenged, might arguably support discipline.
The motion for non-suit was dismissed.
Arbitration process supersedes ongoing WDHP processes regarding issues raised in a June 2007 letter.
During the arbitration hearing, an issue arose regarding matters outlined in a June 8, 2007 letter to the grievor.
The Vice-Chair ruled that the issues raised in the letter and its enclosures are covered by the arbitration proceedings.
Any ongoing or potential Workplace Discrimination and Harassment Policy (WDHP) processes regarding those issues are superseded by the arbitration process, and the parties may raise them as part of the arbitration.
Preliminary objection based on laches deferred until the merits of the grievances are heard.
The Employer raised a preliminary objection that three grievances filed in 1992 should be dismissed based on laches or undue delay.
The Union argued that the proceeding should not be bifurcated and that the laches issue should be deferred until the merits are heard to better assess prejudice.
The Vice-Chair concluded that the appropriate approach was to reserve on the laches issue and hear the merits of the grievances, directing the Registrar to schedule the matter accordingly.
Grievance dismissed; Employer did not contravene settlement memorandum by offering unclassified position instead of classified role.
The Union alleged that the Employer contravened a Memorandum of Settlement by failing to provide the grievor with a classified meat inspector position closer to his residence.
The grievor had secured a classified position in another region through a competitive process but preferred to work closer to home.
The Employer offered him an unclassified position in his preferred region, which he declined due to concerns about sufficient hours.
The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the Employer was not obligated to create a classified position in the preferred region and that its decision to use two unclassified positions was based on reasonable operational considerations.
The Board also found no bad faith or misleading conduct by the Employer regarding the potential for additional hours in the unclassified position.
Employer's request for an adjournment of the scheduled hearing granted.
During a conference call, the employer requested an adjournment of a scheduled hearing, citing difficulties in receiving the notice of proceeding and the unavailability of their advisor.
The union opposed the request.
The Vice-Chair granted the adjournment and rescheduled the hearing.
Employer ordered to produce consulting contract with payment details redacted in bargaining unit integrity grievance.
During a hearing regarding a bargaining unit integrity grievance, the Union requested production of a contract between the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services and Collective Minds Consulting Incorporated.
The Grievance Settlement Board found the document arguably relevant and directed the Employer to provide a copy to the Union's counsel, with specific references to payment deleted.
Grievance dismissed; restricting training opportunity to classified employees for budgetary reasons was not bad faith.
The Union grieved the Ministry's decision to restrict a 'call for interest' for a back-up Trial Co-ordinator training opportunity to classified employees, excluding unclassified staff.
The Union argued this was a bad faith exercise of management rights intended to undermine unclassified employees' ability to compete for future vacancies.
The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the decision was made for legitimate financial and budgetary reasons.
Under the funding formula, backfilling with classified employees was revenue-neutral, whereas using unclassified employees resulted in a revenue loss.
The Board concluded the decision was reasonable and not a disguised means of achieving an impermissible end.
Unclassified court staff without fixed finishing times are not entitled to daily overtime pay.
The union filed a group grievance on behalf of unclassified court staff claiming entitlement to overtime pay for mandatory evening training sessions.
The union argued the employees had regularly scheduled work days and were entitled to overtime under Article 31.3.1(b) or (c) of the collective agreement.
The employer argued the employees did not have regularly scheduled work days because their finishing times varied, and thus Article 31.3.1(d) applied, requiring them to work over 36.25 hours in a week to receive overtime.
The Grievance Settlement Board agreed with the employer, finding the employees did not have specific scheduled hours or regularly scheduled work days, and dismissed the grievances.
Reconsideration of pay equity application dismissed for failing to meet the required test.
The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her pay equity application.
She argued that the Tribunal misunderstood her job duties, that she was paid less than male enforcement clerks, and that the respondent obstructed her attempts to find replacement work.
The Tribunal dismissed the reconsideration request, finding that the applicant failed to meet the test for reconsideration.
She did not present new evidence that could not have been presented at the original hearing, did not show a change in circumstances, and did not argue the decision was wrong in law.
