OGSB 2000

During negotiations, the parties signed a Memorandum of Agreement regarding strike-related activity.

The Employer withheld sick leave pay from employees it alleged were participating in an illegal strike, but later withdrew its intention to impose discipline.

The Union brought a preliminary motion arguing that the withdrawal of discipline removed the grounds for denying sick leave and sought an order for payment.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the motion, noting the Employer still maintained the employees were not ill.

The Board also established an expedited process for litigating the individual sick leave claims, requiring will-say statements and supporting documentation.

The parties referred a grievance regarding the application of Appendix 9 and 18 of the collective agreement, related to the privatization of tree nurseries, to mediation/arbitration.

The employer raised preliminary issues relating to previous decisions and settlements.

Following submissions, the arbitrator dismissed the grievances without written reasons, as requested by the parties.

At the hearing for this grievance, the union stated it had no dispute with the employer's actions, and the parties agreed there was no difference between them.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that under section 7(3) of the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act, there must be a difference between the parties for the Board to have jurisdiction.

The grievance was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The Grievance Settlement Board convened a mediation/arbitration regarding the grievor's return to work.

The Vice Chair issued a declaration that the employer was unable to provide work for the grievor that was consistent with her functional abilities and that would restore her pre-injury earnings.

The union grieved the employer's scheduling of casual employees, arguing that a senior casual employee available from 12:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. should have been scheduled for that entire period instead of overlapping shifts being assigned to different employees.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the collective agreement does not fetter the employer's power to fix the start and finish times of shifts.

Because the grievor could not provide the services of two people during the one-hour overlap, he was not available for the entirety of the established shifts.

The Union filed a policy grievance alleging that the Employer violated the collective agreement by failing to designate newly created Government Information Centre (GIC) positions as permanent bargaining unit positions.

The Union argued that the Employer's delay in classifying these positions denied surplussed employees the right to bump into them and prevented bargaining unit members from applying for them.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the preliminary issue, finding that under article 31 of the collective agreement, the Employer has the right to wait up to two years before converting unclassified positions to classified ones, absent bad faith.

The Board also noted practical reasons for the delay, including unresolved funding and classification issues.

The union requested to bifurcate the hearing of a job competition grievance to first determine whether the employer's failure to look beyond candidate interviews was a fatal procedural flaw.

The Grievance Settlement Board denied the request, finding that the evidence relating to procedural fairness was not easily separable from the rest of the job competition process.

The Board concluded that the balance of convenience favoured hearing all evidence on all issues in the normal course.

The union filed grievances alleging the employer failed to provide proper notice of termination when operations were divested and employees were transferred to a successor employer.

The employer brought a preliminary motion arguing there was no arbitrable difference, as the grievors were not laid off under the collective agreement, obligations under the relevant appendix were resolved by a prior agreement, and the Employment Standards Act did not apply due to continuity of employment.

The arbitrator agreed, finding no difference between the parties and therefore no jurisdiction under the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act.

The grievances were dismissed.

The grievor, a store manager with 24 years of service, was discharged for violating the employer's cash handling policy regarding US currency.

During the investigation, the employer held a meeting with the grievor where he made self-incriminating statements.

The employer failed to advise the grievor of his right to union representation prior to or during this meeting, as required by article 26.3 of the collective agreement.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the meeting triggered the grievor's substantive right to representation, which he did not waive.

The Board declared the discharge void ab initio and ordered the grievor reinstated with compensation from the date the union raised the representation issue.

The grievor, a warehouse worker, was off sick on a Friday when the employer assigned Sunday overtime.

The employer did not call the grievor at home to offer him the overtime, relying on a practice of not bothering sick employees, and instead hired temporary agency workers.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the employer violated the collective agreement by failing to offer the overtime in rotation, as it would have been reasonable to call the grievor.

Because the work was lost to the bargaining unit by being assigned to an outside agency, the Board awarded monetary compensation rather than an in-kind overtime remedy.

The union grieved that the employer failed to assign the grievor, a Customer Service Representative, to be in charge of the store during afternoon shifts when the store manager and assistant manager were absent, arguing that such assignments should be based on seniority.

The union claimed these assignments constituted filling a temporary vacancy under the collective agreement.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that assigning an employee to be in charge of a shift and paying them a premium did not amount to appointing them to a temporary vacancy in a higher classification, and therefore the seniority provisions for temporary appointments did not apply.

The Union filed a policy grievance alleging the employer failed to fill permanent positions for Community Patrol Officers and Dispatchers.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the employer to make 28 permanent full-time appointments for Community Patrol Officers and five for Dispatchers, to be filled by individuals currently working in those positions on a full-time contract basis.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued a clarification of its May 15, 2000 decision regarding a union grievance.

The employer asserted that Articles 32, 36, and 39 of the collective agreement fell under the general exemption set out in paragraph 3 of the previous decision.

The Vice Chair consulted his notes and recollection from the first day of hearing and confirmed that Articles 32, 36, and 39 were intended to form part of the exemption of coverage for the affected employees.

The union brought a motion for an adjournment of the scheduled hearing.

The Grievance Settlement Board granted the adjournment on the condition that the grievors contact the union within three months of the lead grievor's return to work from sick leave to set a new hearing date, failing which the grievances would be deemed abandoned.

The Union filed a grievance alleging the Employer contravened the Collective Agreement by failing to comply with the Enhanced Accountability Framework (EAF), a memorandum of agreement regarding employment equity.

The Employer argued the EAF was no longer in effect following the repeal of the Employment Equity Act and notice given during bargaining.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the Employer provided clear and timely notice during 1995 bargaining that the EAF was nullified, which brought the estoppel enforcing the agreement to an end.

The union filed a grievance alleging the employer violated the collective agreement's redeployment provisions when it closed three jails and transferred the inmates and work to other facilities.

The central issue was whether the closure and transfer constituted a change in an 'operation's headquarters' under Appendix 13, which would trigger specific relocation and surplus rights for affected employees.

The employer argued that 'operation' meant a functioning, cohesive unit, not just the work itself.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that 'operation' refers to the productive activity or work.

Since the work of the closed jails was moved to locations beyond 40 kilometres, Appendix 13 applied, granting affected employees the choice to move with the work or be declared surplus.

The grievor, a Probation Officer, alleged that the Employer violated Article 20.7 of the collective agreement.

The matter was referred to mediation/arbitration.

The Vice Chair found no violation of the collective agreement and dismissed the grievance.

The grievors, Assessment Field Officers, alleged they were improperly denied acting pay while performing the duties of Neighborhood Functional Assessors during a period of major property reassessment.

The union argued the grievors performed the same work as the higher-rated assessors.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievances, finding that while there was significant overlap in duties, the grievors did not perform all the core duties of the higher position, such as independent commercial/industrial valuations and defending assessments before the Assessment Review Board.

The Union sought to introduce an estoppel argument regarding the Employer's practice of placing part-time employees into full-time positions, which it had not raised during the grievance procedure or in initial particulars.

The Employer objected, arguing it was too late and would cause prejudice.

The Grievance Settlement Board allowed the Union's motion, finding no prejudice to the Employer as the Union's main witnesses on the issue had not yet testified, the Employer's witnesses could be recalled, and the Employer had sufficient time to prepare before the next hearing date.

The grievor voluntarily submitted a letter of intent to retire.

Prior to the effective date of his retirement, he sought to rescind his resignation.

The employer, acting with the delegated authority of the Deputy Minister, declined the request.

The union grieved the refusal.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that under section 19 of the Public Service Act, the decision to accept a withdrawal of a resignation is a management function not open to arbitral review unless the collective agreement clearly provides for it.

As there was no such provision, the Board lacked jurisdiction to intervene.