OGSB 2000

The union filed a policy grievance alleging violations of the Letter of Agreement on Permanent Vacancy Review.

At the hearing, issues arose regarding disclosure and particulars.

The parties agreed to an order for the employer to provide specific documents and information, and for the union to subsequently advise whether it was pursuing its claim that the employer failed to post the appropriate number of vacancies.

The Board issued the agreed-upon order and remained seized of the grievance.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of paramedics claiming entitlement to enhanced severance pay and pay in lieu of notice following the transfer of ambulance services from the Ministry of Health to a regional municipality, which contracted the service to a hospital.

The union argued the transfer fell under Schedule D of the collective agreement, or alternatively, that the paramedics were entitled to surplus benefits under Schedule B because their seniority was not fully carried over for bumping purposes at the new employer.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding the transfer fell under Schedule B and that the seniority carryover provision did not require the new employer's seniority system to provide identical bumping rights as the Ontario Public Service.

The grievor filed a grievance regarding his performance review (PMR).

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the grievance was untimely.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the grievor was aware of his complaints about the PMR in February 1999 and knew no later than April 29, 1999, that his complaints had been rejected by management.

Because the grievance was not filed until June 7, 1999, well past the mandatory time limits set out in the collective agreement, the preliminary objection was allowed and the grievance was dismissed.

The grievor received a surplus notice in 1997 and filed a grievance in 1999 alleging the surplusing was contrary to the collective agreement.

Both the union and the employer agreed that the grievance was filed out of time and contended that the arbitrator lacked jurisdiction to hear it because neither party wished to have it arbitrated.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance in accordance with prior jurisprudence.

The grievor was discharged following a physical altercation with a co-worker.

The union filed the grievance past the time limits set out in the collective agreement.

The employer raised preliminary objections regarding arbitrability due to the delay and the unsigned grievance.

The arbitrator extended the time limits under s. 48(16) of the Labour Relations Act, finding the delay was short and the grievance involved a discharge, despite the union's negligence.

On the merits, the arbitrator found the grievor was the aggressor in the altercation.

Given the seriousness of workplace violence and the grievor's lack of remorse, the arbitrator upheld a substantial penalty, substituting the discharge with a suspension without pay for the period prior to his reinstatement.

The grievor was discharged following a physical altercation with a coworker.

Through a mediation-arbitration process, the parties agreed to reinstate the grievor to the part-time seniority list without admission of liability.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the reinstatement on the agreed terms.

The issues of timeliness, arbitrability, and whether the period between discharge and reinstatement should be treated as a suspension without pay remain outstanding for future determination if not resolved.

The employer raised a preliminary objection to the arbitrability of a grievance claiming disability benefits, arguing that the union's withdrawal of a similar grievance in a different matter created an estoppel or rendered the issue res judicata.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the objection, finding that the parties and objects of the two grievances were not identical, and the withdrawal of the prior grievance did not constitute a final determination or a representation on which the employer could detrimentally rely.

In a grievance arbitration regarding the termination of the grievor's employment, a teleconference was held to address pre-hearing disclosure issues.

The Vice Chair ordered the Employer to provide the Union with all interview notes and statements of bargaining unit witnesses, as well as a specific medical letter.

The Employer also undertook to provide a general outline of the alleged misconduct and a list of witnesses for the first day of the hearing.

The Grievance Settlement Board heard a group grievance brought by the union against the employer.

At the request of the parties, the Vice Chair issued a decision without reasons.

The grievance was found to be without merit and was dismissed.

The grievor was discharged for allegedly soliciting private companies for charitable donations on behalf of the Ministry and a charity, and keeping the donations.

At arbitration, the employer sought to introduce evidence of additional similar solicitations discovered after the discharge.

The union objected, arguing the employer was limited to the grounds relied upon at the time of discharge and had failed to provide full disclosure as required by the collective agreement.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that the evidence was admissible, as it related to the original reasons for discharge and was not known to the employer at the time.

While the employer delayed in disclosing the final investigation report, the appropriate remedy was an adjournment rather than exclusion of the evidence.

The union filed grievances on behalf of six employees whose jobs became surplus following the reorganization of social assistance programs.

The employer raised four preliminary objections: that the grievances were barred by a prior memorandum of agreement, that the health and safety claims were barred by a prior union grievance settlement, that the Board lacked jurisdiction to review management's workload decisions absent improper motive, and that the grievors lacked standing to challenge other employees' workloads.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that the memorandum of agreement barred claims under article 20 but not article 6, and dismissed the remaining three preliminary objections, allowing the grievances to proceed.

The grievor, a Correctional Officer, suffered multiple workplace injuries resulting in intermittent absences.

The union grieved the employer's decision to cease full salary continuation under Article 41.2 of the collective agreement, arguing that each recurrence of an injury constituted a new claim triggering a fresh 65-day entitlement.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, following a previous arbitration decision which held that intermittent absences from the same originating injury do not trigger a new entitlement period, as the collective agreement specifically ties intermittent absences to the first absence of the originating claim.

The union filed a grievance alleging that the employer breached a previous Board order requiring the employer to give the grievor at least 21 calendar days' notice of his shifts.

The employer only gave 15 days' notice for a shift on December 26, 1998.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the employer breached the order.

As a remedy, the Board ordered the employer to pay the grievor $500 for travel expenses incurred to attend the shift, as the grievor resided in Toronto and had to travel to Timmins.

The grievor, an International Market Consultant, was reassigned to different duties during a workplace reorganization.

Although his job classification and pay remained the same, he grieved the reassignment, alleging it constituted age discrimination under the collective agreement.

The union argued that the employer's new human resources strategy, which emphasized youth recruitment, created a climate that favoured younger workers.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding no direct evidence that age was a factor in the specific decision to reassign the grievor, and accepting the manager's testimony that the decision was based on operational needs and staffing levels.

The grievor alleged unjust termination following the Ontario Realty Corporation's decision to pursue alternative service delivery through competitive tendering.

The union and the employer had previously entered into minutes of settlement and release regarding the transfer of work, which included the withdrawal of all related grievances.

The Grievance Settlement Board found it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the grievance as the matter had been settled and withdrawn.

The grievor, an unclassified employee on a one-year contract, was terminated for performance deficiencies with two weeks' pay in lieu of notice.

The union grieved the termination, alleging discharge without just cause.

The employer raised a preliminary objection, arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction because it had exercised its right under the collective agreement to terminate an unclassified employee with notice.

The Board dismissed the preliminary objection, finding that a termination for performance reasons constitutes a discharge, which is subject to the just cause protection in the collective agreement, rather than a mere termination with notice.

The grievor was discharged by the employer, who relied on his past disciplinary record and alleged breaches of a settlement agreement regarding attendance and punctuality.

The union argued there was no culminating event to justify the discharge.

The arbitrator found that the employer could not rely on the grievor exceeding the 10-day absence limit as a triggering event because it had already addressed that issue with a warning.

Furthermore, the employer could not rely on the grievor's failure to provide a timely medical note because it was not stated as a reason in the discharge letter.

The discharge was rescinded and the grievor reinstated with full compensation.

In a discharge grievance, the parties disagreed on two procedural issues regarding how the hearing should proceed, given several outstanding disciplinary grievances.

The union argued the grievances should be heard seriatim to avoid confusion, while the employer argued they should be heard together for efficiency.

The Vice Chair ruled that the balance of convenience favoured hearing the grievances seriatim.

On the second issue, the union proposed that the Board first determine whether there was a triggering culpable event justifying the discharge before hearing the full merits.

The Vice Chair agreed, ruling that the Board would initially hear evidence and argument on the sole issue of whether a triggering culpable event was required and existed.

The grievor alleged that he was improperly surplussed.

The parties to the collective agreement did not dispute the Employer's action.

The grievance was dismissed.

The Union filed individual and policy grievances alleging that students employed by the St. Lawrence Parks Commission at Fort Henry were improperly paid student wage rates instead of the higher classified or unclassified rates for the positions they occupied.

The Union argued that because the students performed the same duties as seasonal employees, they were not in 'student positions' under the collective agreement.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the main grievances, finding that the students were hired into 'student positions' and were properly paid the standardized student wage rates negotiated in Appendix 12.

The Board also held that individual students could not arbitrate their assigned wage rates.

However, the Board found that students working outside their 'regular vacation period' did not meet the definition of a student, and directed the parties to negotiate their status and rate of pay for those periods.