OGSB 1997

The union filed a grievance alleging the employer failed to make reasonable efforts to secure employment for bargaining unit members affected by the closure of several facilities and the transfer of their functions to broader public sector agencies.

The employer argued its efforts, which included holding an information day and sending letters to receiving agencies, were sufficient.

The Grievance Settlement Board found the employer's efforts were de minimis and failed to meet the collective agreement's requirement to make reasonable efforts.

The Board directed the employer to hold meetings with the union, negotiate placements with financial incentives, and keep detailed records of surplusing activities.

The union filed a grievance alleging the employer failed to make reasonable efforts to secure employment for bargaining unit employees affected by the closure of several facilities and the transfer of their functions to broader public sector agencies, as required by Appendix 9 of the collective agreement.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the employer's efforts, which consisted merely of holding an information day, writing letters, and making inquiries without any negotiation or financial incentives, were de minimis and insufficient.

The Board declared that the employer breached the collective agreement and directed it to hold bi-weekly meetings with the union, negotiate placements with receiving agencies using financial incentives, and maintain detailed records of surplusing activities.

The employer introduced a privatization initiative for translation services, allowing employees to bid for contracts but requiring successful bidders to resign and forfeit enhanced severance.

The union grieved, arguing this violated the collective agreement's requirement to make reasonable efforts to assist employees in securing employment and its provision allowing employees to bid on the same basis as non-employees.

The Grievance Settlement Board upheld the grievance, finding the policy placed employees at a disadvantage compared to outside bidders and deprived them of negotiated rights.

The Board declared the policy invalid and extended the deadline for submitting bids.

The grievor, a corrections officer, was suspended without pay after being charged with sexual assault and breach of trust involving inmates.

The employer argued the suspension was authorized under s. 22(1) of the Public Service Act pending an investigation, or alternatively, that there was just cause due to bail conditions and workplace impact.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that s. 22(1) requires an internal employer investigation, not merely an independent police investigation.

Furthermore, applying the Phillips Cables test, the employer failed to establish just cause because it did not investigate the charges to assess the risk of conviction or demonstrate that the grievor's presence would cause substantial and immediate hardship.

The grievance was allowed, and the employer was ordered to compensate the grievor for lost wages and benefits during the suspension period.