OGSB 2000

The union grieved the employer's job competition process for 40 full-time Customer Service Representative positions.

Two grievors were screened out of the interview process due to past discipline, while four others participated but were unsuccessful.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the employer improperly disqualified the two grievors without considering whether their past discipline was relevant to future performance or if they had been rehabilitated.

Furthermore, the Board held that the entire competition process was fundamentally flawed because the employer relied almost exclusively on a short interview and a mechanical scoring of two performance appraisals, ignoring other relevant information such as complete personnel files, resumes, and supervisor input.

The Board ordered the employer to re-run the competition restricted to the six grievors and the successful incumbents.

The union sought access to documentation in the Data Room referred to in the Request for Proposals for the Central North Correctional Centre.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered that the union be granted access to review specific documents, including the classification system description, food services details, and performance frameworks.

The order stipulated that union counsel must maintain possession of all copies, destroy working copies at the close of the hearing, and use the documentation solely for the litigation of the grievance.

The union filed a grievance regarding the calculation of the grievor's Continuous Service Date, arguing that her prior work on the Best Ever Ontario Program should be credited as service in the Ontario Public Service.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the union offered no tenable basis for its challenge, as the grievor was not appointed to the public service prior to April 1, 1989, and the collective agreement did not provide credit for periods of employment that were not the result of appointment to the public service.

The grievance was dismissed.

The grievor sought to buy back pension contributions for a period of absence from 1991 to 1992.

The employer objected that the grievance, filed in December 1999, was untimely under the collective agreement.

The collective agreement required a grievance to be filed within 10 days of the employee first becoming aware of the circumstances giving rise to the complaint.

The Grievance Settlement Board applied a subjective test, finding that the time limit only began to run when the grievor became aware she had a right to grieve under the collective agreement, which occurred in early December 1999.

The grievance was therefore found to be timely.

The union brought a preliminary motion arguing that the grievor's discharge for alleged sexual harassment was a nullity because the employer violated the collective agreement's sunset clause.

The employer's investigator had considered a 1992 allegation of inappropriate comments for which the grievor was never disciplined.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the motion, finding that the sunset clause only applies to formal letters of reprimand, suspensions, or other sanctions placed on a personnel file.

Since the 1992 incident resulted in no discipline, the sunset clause did not apply to bar its consideration, though the union remained free to challenge the fairness of relying on it on other grounds.

Following a mediation/arbitration hearing, the Grievance Settlement Board ordered the employer to pay the grievor $100.00 to resolve grievances relating to maternity/paternity leave top-up.

The union grieved the discipline and dismissal of several employees for the widespread misappropriation of government resources at the Monteith Correctional Complex.

Through a mediation/arbitration procedure, the arbitrator reduced the disciplinary penalties, including reinstating two terminated employees.

The arbitrator found that management had failed to consistently follow its own rules and had condoned the personal use of government supplies and equipment, which contributed to the employees not fully recognizing the seriousness of their misconduct.

In a pre-hearing conference call regarding an employee's discharge for allegedly obtaining air miles on customer purchases, the Union requested the Employer to disclose its cost for an air mile.

The Employer argued the information was confidential and irrelevant.

The Grievance Settlement Board found the information arguably relevant and ordered its disclosure, subject to the condition that it only be used for the proceeding.

The grievor was surplussed and assigned to a lower-rated position under the Public Service Act prior to the negotiation of a first collective agreement between AMAPCEO and the Crown.

Years later, he sought a direct assignment without competition to a higher-rated position, arguing his rights under the Public Service Act had vested during the statutory freeze period.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the pre-collective bargaining statutory regime and the post-collective bargaining regime could not co-exist.

The collective agreement superseded the regulation, and enforcing the grievor's claimed statutory rights would conflict with the rights of other employees under the collective agreement to compete for vacant positions.

The union grieved that the employer violated Appendix 18 of the collective agreement by awarding requests for proposals to employers who did not recognize seniority rights for layoff and job competitions.

The parties sought an interpretation of sections 5.2 and 5.3.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that the modifying clause in section 5.3, 'to the extent that they are provided in the proponent's workplace,' applies only to severance and termination payments, meaning seniority for layoff and job competitions must be recognized.

However, regarding section 5.2, the Board held that employees opting out of the transfer are restricted to the specific benefits listed in that section and do not retain full rights under Article 20.2, such as applying for restricted competitions.

The grievor, a long-term employee qualifying for early retirement, grieved that her duties had been reduced and sought an order from the Grievance Settlement Board directing the employer to declare her surplus.

The employer maintained she was performing required work.

The Board dismissed the grievance, holding that it has no jurisdiction to order the employer to issue a surplus notice, nor can an employee grieve the failure to do so.

The union grieved the employer's decision to transfer two psychiatric hospital facilities to a new employer on separate dates, arguing it would adversely affect employees' seniority rights.

The union contended this was an improper exercise of management discretion.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding no evidence that the employer's decision was made in bad faith or for anything other than the legitimate governmental objective of facilitating a smooth transition.

The grievor, a former Cabinet Office employee, was surplussed and laid off prior to the enactment of Bill 7, which excluded Cabinet Office employees from the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act.

He was subsequently recalled to a lower-classified position and sought assignment to a vacancy under article 18.8.1(h) of the collective agreement.

The employer denied the assignment, arguing Bill 7 removed him from the bargaining unit.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that the grievor's rights under article 18.8.1(h) vested when he was surplussed, prior to Bill 7.

Applying the presumption against interference with vested rights, the Board found Bill 7 did not deprive the grievor of his entitlement and ordered the employer to assess his qualifications for the vacancy.

The grievor claimed he was improperly placed on the pay grid following the settlement of a previous grievance that permanently assigned him to a new position.

He argued he should have been placed at the top of the grid because he had performed the duties for seven years.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that under Article 7.1.2 of the Collective Agreement, an employee receiving a promotion is placed at the lowest level of the new pay grid, subject to a minimum 3% increase.

The union filed a grievance alleging that the employer violated the collective agreement by failing to fulfill its obligations concerning the Senior Persons Committee (SPC), which was tasked with making recommendations to improve the Joint System Subcommittee (JSSC) for classification disputes.

The parties agreed on many recommendations but reached an impasse over retroactivity and arbitrability.

The employer took the position that it would not agree to any recommendations unless the union accepted its proposals on those two issues.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that while the employer was not required to agree to specific proposals, its insistence on a position that would result in no recommendations being made violated its obligation under the collective agreement to make recommendations to improve the JSSC.

The grievance was allowed and the employer was directed to cease and desist from its position.

The parties engaged in a mediation/arbitration process regarding outstanding health and safety issues.

They reached a Memorandum of Settlement concerning equipment, training, and communication protocols for correctional officers on community escorts.

The Grievance Settlement Board made the Minutes of Settlement an order of the Board, with the arbitrator remaining seized of the implementation and remaining outstanding issues.

The parties agreed to minutes of settlement resolving a dispute over the review and transfer of employee personnel files.

The settlement established a process for employees to review their files with human resources staff and request the removal of documentation relating to union and discretionary leaves prior to the file being transferred to a new employer.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued a consent award incorporating the terms of the settlement.

The parties agreed to a consent award resolving policy grievances related to the transfer of governance of psychiatric hospitals.

The settlement sets out the process for transferring personnel, WSIB, and employee health files, including employees' rights to review and request removal of documents from their files prior to transfer.

The Vice-Chair remained seized of any disputes regarding the completeness of the transfer agreements.

The union filed policy grievances regarding the transfer of two psychiatric hospitals to the broader public sector.

Affected employees received job offers from the receiving facilities and were deemed to have resigned from the public service.

The dispute centered on whether employees with between one and five years of service were entitled to severance pay under the collective agreement.

The arbitrator found that the collective agreement was ambiguous regarding whether the deemed resignation occurred during the surplus notice period.

However, because the right to severance pay existed prior to the addition of the transfer appendices and was not clearly negated, the arbitrator concluded that the employees were entitled to severance pay.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued a consent order declaring that the grievances before it are to be dealt with in accordance with the minutes of settlement signed pertaining to GSB File #1588/95 and #1601/95.