OGSB 2000

The grievor filed a grievance alleging unjust discipline and a two-shift suspension.

Following mediation, the parties executed Minutes of Settlement agreeing to rescind the discipline, remove it from the grievor's file, and provide full redress for the lost wages.

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

The grievor sought indemnification for legal fees incurred in a workplace-related litigious matter.

The employer objected to the Grievance Settlement Board's jurisdiction, arguing that the collective agreement contained no provision for legal indemnification and that reimbursement was solely at the Deputy Minister's discretion under a Ministry policy.

The Vice Chair dismissed the grievance for lack of jurisdiction, noting the absence of a collective agreement right and the lack of any allegation that the policy was administered in an arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad faith manner.

The grievors alleged a violation of the collective agreement regarding the calculation of severance payments related to attendance credits.

During a mediation/arbitration procedure, both the Union and the Employer contended that the arbitrator lacked jurisdiction to hear the grievances because neither party wished to proceed to arbitration.

Relying on prior jurisprudence, the arbitrator agreed that he was without jurisdiction and dismissed the grievances.

The union filed a group grievance regarding the allocation of overtime.

The grievance was advanced to stage 2 but was not advanced to stage 3 until 18 months later due to the union representative's absence and subsequent unexplained delay.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the grievance was inarbitrable due to untimeliness.

The Grievance Settlement Board declined to exercise its discretion under s. 48(16) of the Labour Relations Act to extend the time limits, finding no reasonable explanation for the lengthy delay and noting prejudice to the employer due to fading memories.

The grievance was dismissed as inarbitrable.

The Union grieved the Employer's decision to deny six surplus employees pay in lieu of notice under Article 20.2.1 of the collective agreement.

The Employer argued that operational requirements necessitated the employees working their six-month notice period, assigning them to a central facility.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that the Employer's withholding of consent for pay in lieu is subject to arbitral review for reasonableness and bona fide business reasons.

The Board found that the work assigned was 'make work' and that the Employer failed to establish a legitimate operational need for the grievors at their specific workplace.

The grievance was allowed, and the grievors were awarded six months' pay in lieu of notice.

The grievor, a tax auditor, claimed travel expenses from the audit location to his residence at the end of the work day, rather than to the office.

The employer required the grievor to travel back to the office during regular working hours, which the union argued violated the collective agreement by treating travel time as work time.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that the employer has the right to require employees to travel during regular working hours as a cost-saving measure, even if it results in less actual audit time.

The grievance was dismissed.

The Employer requested an adjournment of a scheduled hearing date because its newly assigned counsel had a prior commitment at the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

Over the Union's objection, the Grievance Settlement Board granted the adjournment request.

In a grievance arbitration concerning an unjust dismissal, the union brought a motion for non-suit at the conclusion of the employer's case, arguing the employer failed to establish a prima facie case.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the motion for non-suit without providing reasons, in accordance with its usual practice, and ordered the hearing to reconvene on the merits.

The grievor, a correctional officer, was discharged for alleged misconduct involving a female inmate.

At arbitration, the employer sought to introduce evidence of alleged post-discharge misconduct (consorting with a known prostitute and impersonating a correctional officer) as an independent ground for discharge or for consideration in the board's remedial authority.

The union objected to the introduction of this evidence.

The arbitrator held that the post-discharge conduct was too remote, occurred a full year after the discharge, and was unrelated to the original grounds for discharge or the employer's legitimate interests.

The employer's request to introduce the evidence was denied.

The grievor filed a grievance alleging sexual harassment and discrimination in the workplace between 1991 and 1995.

The employer brought a motion to dismiss the grievance as untimely, as it was filed in January 1998, 26 months after the grievor left the workplace.

The union argued the grievor only became aware of her right to grieve in October 1997.

The Grievance Settlement Board found the grievor was aware of her complaint in October 1995 but chose to pursue a negotiated settlement and other avenues instead of filing a grievance.

The Board declined to extend the time limits under the Labour Relations Act and dismissed the grievance as untimely.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued a supplemental award determining the compensation owed to the grievor following an initial award.

The employer was ordered to pay various amounts including 23 months' salary, lost overtime, termination and severance pay under the Employment Standards Act, and an amount in lieu of benefits, less a 30-day suspension deduction.

The total compensation was subject to statutory deductions and an income tax gross-up.

The grievor, a warehouseman with 20 years of seniority, grieved a three-day suspension, a ten-day suspension, and his discharge.

The arbitrator upheld the three-day suspension for unsafe forklift operation, finding the employer's witnesses more credible than the grievor.

The ten-day suspension for threatening a co-worker and a second unsafe driving incident was voided due to the employer's unreasonable delay in imposing discipline, which prejudiced the grievor.

Regarding the discharge, the arbitrator found that the grievor's statement 'I want to kill 'em' at a Ministry of Labour meeting warranted discipline but not discharge, substituting a 30-day suspension.

However, the arbitrator exercised the exceptional remedy of denying reinstatement, finding the employment relationship irreparably destroyed due to the grievor's complete refusal to accept responsibility, lack of remorse, and animosity toward co-workers and management.

The grievor was awarded compensation in lieu of reinstatement equivalent to one month's wages per year of seniority plus 15% for fringe benefits.

The union filed a grievance alleging violations of Articles 6 and 31.15.1.1 of the collective agreement regarding the grievor's conversion to full-time status and the employer's failure to post a position.

The union conceded that the grievor did not meet the criteria for conversion under Article 31.15.1.1, as he lacked two years of full-time service and the facility was scheduled to close.

The grievance regarding the failure to post under Article 6 was dismissed as untimely, having been filed in October 1997 for an alleged failure in 1996.

The grievance was dismissed.

The grievors, who worked as Operators with headquarters at the Kingston Township Wastewater Plant, were directed by the Employer to report directly to a different work location (Odessa) for rotational assignments.

The Union grieved, arguing that the grievors were entitled to compensation for the additional travel time and mileage incurred by commuting directly to Odessa in their personal vehicles, as well as meal allowances.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that while the Employer had the right to rotate employees, it violated the collective agreement by failing to compensate the grievors for the extra kilometres travelled and the additional time spent in such travel outside of working hours.

The Board also found a violation of the provision stating that use of a personal vehicle on Employer business is not a condition of employment.

The claim for meal allowances was dismissed as the new location was within 24 kilometres of their headquarters.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued a consent order resolving multiple grievances between OPSEU and the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services.

The order directed the assignment of two grievors to Clerk 2 positions with unbroken continuous service dates, pension contributions, and vacation credits.

It also ordered the employer to pay a total of $7,000 in backpay, education allowance, and re-employment expenses to four grievors, and appointed one grievor to an unclassified position for six months.

Following a prior decision that the employer contravened the collective agreement by failing to pay a 2% benefit to unclassified employees, the union sought retroactive payment for both grievors and non-grievors beyond the standard 30-day period prior to the grievance filings.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that it lacked jurisdiction to expand the scope of the union grievance to cover non-grievors outside the specified location.

The Board further found no inequitable conduct by the employer that would warrant an exception to the usual rule limiting retroactivity to 30 days prior to the filing of the grievances.

The union filed a group grievance on behalf of unclassified correctional officers, nurses, and a cook, claiming they were improperly denied stand-by or on-call pay.

The union argued that the employer's requirement for these employees to be available for short-notice shifts amounted to stand-by or on-call duty under the collective agreement.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that while the employees were required to maintain a level of 'general availability', they were not disciplined for occasionally missing calls or refusing shifts.

Therefore, they were not required to maintain the specific states of readiness that would entitle them to stand-by or on-call pay.

The union filed a group grievance claiming standby pay for maintenance employees designated as emergency workers during the 1996 OPS strike.

The employees were not called to work but argued they had to remain ready.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding it was covered by a prior master settlement award that withdrew all grievances requesting premium payments for emergency workers unless a commitment to pay was made.

The employer's letter only committed to premium payments if work was actually performed, which did not occur.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued a supplementary award regarding the implementation of a prior award dated August 6, 1999, which found the employer breached Article 46 of the Collective Agreement.

The Vice Chair clarified that the grievors are entitled to proceed immediately with the paramedic training and selection process.

If they successfully complete the certification process, they are to be remunerated as if they had participated in and successfully completed the January 1997 program.

The Vice Chair remained seized of any further implementation matters.

The union filed a group grievance on behalf of former employees of a psychiatric hospital unit, alleging they were denied the right to be surplused and exercise bumping rights upon the unit's privatization.

The parties agreed that this grievance was covered by a comprehensive settlement of all Appendix 9 (Reasonable Accommodation) grievances, which provided a $2,000,000 lump sum but allocated no money to these specific grievors.

As all such grievances were withdrawn under the settlement, this grievance was dismissed.