OGSB 2000

The grievor filed a classification grievance.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that classification grievances are barred from arbitration by the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act and the local appendix to the sectoral framework agreement under the Social Contract Act.

The union did not contest this position.

In the absence of a dispute between the parties, the Vice Chair found he lacked jurisdiction to hear the grievance and dismissed it.

The parties reached a consent agreement to resolve multiple grievances concerning reporting pay, set-up and close-down time, and down time for unclassified court support staff.

The union agreed to withdraw the grievances, and the employer agreed to implement a new policy effective May 1, 2000.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued the terms as a consent order and remained seized of the matter for implementation purposes.

The grievor filed a classification grievance.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that classification grievances are barred from arbitration by the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act and the local appendix to the sectoral framework agreement under the Social Contract Act.

The union did not contest this position.

The Vice Chair dismissed the grievance for lack of jurisdiction.

The parties signed minutes of settlement requesting a mediation/arbitration to adjudicate all outstanding issues relating to the grievance.

The Grievance Settlement Board directed the Ministry of Transportation to pay the grievor $1,500.00 less statutory deductions.

The union filed a grievance alleging that a letter dated November 4, 1993, and a subsequent workload arrangement constituted discipline.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the letter was not disciplinary and was never placed in the grievor's personnel file, meaning the Board lacked jurisdiction.

The Grievance Settlement Board agreed, finding the letter contained no common elements of discipline and was not placed in the file.

The Board also found it lacked jurisdiction to determine the workload issue as there was no allegation of harassment on the face of the grievance.

The grievance was dismissed.

The grievor, a head nurse on disability leave since 1986, filed numerous grievances.

At the mediation/arbitration hearing, both the union and the employer contended that the Grievance Settlement Board lacked jurisdiction to hear the grievances because there was no dispute between the parties.

The Vice Chair agreed, citing precedent, and dismissed the grievances for lack of jurisdiction.

The union requested the Grievance Settlement Board to reconvene to address the implementation of a 1995 settlement agreement regarding systemic changes to accommodate employees with family responsibilities.

The employer argued that a case-by-case assessment under the Human Rights Code was sufficient, while the union sought the implementation of a drafted systemic policy.

The Board found that the settlement required more than the statutory minimum but declined to order the draft policy's implementation since it was not ratified by the employer's principals.

The Board ordered the parties to negotiate a policy within eight weeks, failing which a quasi-interest arbitration would be held.

The union brought a motion for an order to produce the work-in-progress on the Ministry's Human Resources Plan and a survey.

The Grievance Settlement Board denied the motion, with reasons to follow.

The parties sought resolution of an outstanding issue regarding the implementation of a Memorandum of Settlement related to a Systemic Change Program.

The parties disagreed on the language for a mediation model used to resolve conflicts between employees.

The employer proposed language requiring the mediator to pre-screen conflicts normally by telephone, citing cost concerns.

The union proposed language allowing the mediator to pre-screen in a cost-effective and confidential manner without proscribing the method.

Following a med-arb process, the Vice Chair ordered that the union's proposed language be included in the mediation provisions.

The grievor claimed he was improperly denied the position of income maintenance officer due to an unfair competition.

As the facility where the position was located had closed, the position was no longer available.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the employer to pay the grievor $11,000 in damages for pain and suffering, after which the grievance would be terminated.

The parties reached an agreement regarding grievances over holiday pay.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued a consent award directing the employer to review the payroll records of ten individuals to determine if they qualify for and have been paid holiday pay in accordance with the Chew-Simcoe/Gorsky award.

The employer was ordered to provide documentation to the union or pay any moneys owed, after which the grievances would be withdrawn.

Following the grievor's reinstatement to his position as a social worker, the parties disputed his entitlement to interest on dental bills and reimbursement for computer course expenses incurred during his termination.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that the interest on dental bills was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the breach.

The Board also found that the educational expenses were reasonable and incurred pursuant to the grievor's obligation to mitigate his losses, as he successfully utilized the acquired skills to obtain employment.

The grievor was awarded reimbursement for both expenses.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of a correctional officer claiming that her underfill status should have been removed earlier, entitling her to be paid at the CO2 middle rate.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the grievance was inarbitrable because it was in substance a classification grievance.

The Grievance Settlement Board upheld the employer's objection, finding that a claim for higher pay based on an alleged right to have underfill status removed is essentially a claim for reclassification.

Under the Sectoral Framework Agreement and section 51 of the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act, classification grievances are inarbitrable.

The grievance was dismissed.

The union filed grievances claiming that four employees should have been converted to classified employees during their employment at the Oxford Regional Centre, which subsequently closed.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued an expedited decision directing the employer to pay each grievor $9,000 in damages for pain and suffering, reimburse up to $3,000 for educational courses, allow access to restricted OPS positions for two years, and pay any owed legislated severance pay.

The Grievance Settlement Board determined the appropriate remedy for a grievor who was unjustly dismissed in 1989.

The Board awarded the grievor his wages and Custodial Responsibility Allowance for the period from his dismissal until he began receiving long-term disability benefits.

The Board also ordered an adjustment to the grievor's pension entitlements to reflect the lost wages, compound interest at 13.5% on the amounts awarded, and a tax gross-up for any additional income taxes incurred due to receiving a lump sum payment.

The grievor's claim for a top-up of his long-term disability benefits was dismissed.

The grievors filed a grievance alleging that their right to a safe working environment under the collective agreement was infringed because smoking by inmates and staff was permitted at the Whitby Jail.

Subsequent to the filing of the grievance, the employer instituted a no-smoking policy at the facility.

The parties agreed that the issue was moot, though the grievors expressed concerns regarding the smoking policy at the new mega jails where they would likely be transferred upon the closure of the Whitby Jail.

The employer's counsel agreed to pass these concerns to senior staff.

The grievance was dismissed as moot.

The parties reached an agreement regarding a grievance over holiday pay.

The Grievance Settlement Board directed the employer to review the grievor's payroll records to determine if he qualifies for or has been paid holiday pay pursuant to the Corbin and Duckworth decisions.

If the employer cannot demonstrate that the grievor does not qualify or has already been paid, it must pay all moneys owed within ten weeks.

Upon meeting these conditions, the grievance shall be withdrawn.