OGSB 2001

The union filed a grievance alleging the employer violated the collective agreement by failing to use reasonable efforts to persuade receiving hospitals to keep transferred employees in the union's pension plan.

Six hospitals applied for third-party standing to participate in the arbitration hearing, arguing they had a significant financial interest in the outcome.

The arbitrator denied the applications for standing, finding that the hospitals' financial interest was analogous to that of a commercial contractor and did not confer a legal entitlement to participate in the hearing, as they asserted no legal claim conflicting with the union's grievance under labour law.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the grievances were inarbitrable classification grievances barred by the Local Appendix to the Social Framework Agreement and the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act.

The representative grievor claimed retroactive pay for a period between his promotion and the subsequent reclassification of his former position, which had resulted in his new position temporarily paying less than his former one.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the employer's objection, finding that because the proper classification had already been determined and implemented, the grievance was merely a dispute over the extent of retroactivity and compensation, not a classification grievance.

The union sought production of documents relating to interpersonal conflict between the grievor and another individual.

The Grievance Settlement Board directed the employer to produce all such documents, excluding privileged ones, on the condition that they be used exclusively for preparing for the hearing.

The parties entered into a memorandum of settlement granting the arbitrator jurisdiction to deal with all grievances relating to the net payment after deductions issues from the year 2000 negotiations.

The employer raised a timeliness argument, asserting that the collective agreement created a ten-day time limit.

The arbitrator found that all grievances filed on or before June 30, 2001, were timely and would proceed, while those filed after that date were untimely and dismissed.

The union grieved the discipline of several employees for inappropriate use of email and computer equipment.

On the first day of the hearing, the parties discussed production and procedural issues.

The Vice-Chairperson ordered the Ministry to produce investigation reports and related documents concerning non-bargaining unit employees in connection with internet or email abuse.

The Union requested interim relief to preclude the Employer from imposing financial consequences, such as suspension or dismissal, on the grievors for failing to meet case closing targets.

The Board applied the two-fold test for interim relief, considering the existence of an arguable case and the balance of potential harm.

The Board found that while the prospect of discipline was troubling to the grievors, the Employer had a fundamental interest in setting and enforcing standards.

Concluding that the balance of potential harm favoured the Employer, the Board denied the request for interim relief.

The union sought interim relief to prevent the employer from suspending or discharging the grievors until their grievances regarding a directive with a threat of discipline were decided.

The employer raised a preliminary objection, arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction to grant interim relief as it was not a 'procedural matter' under s. 48(12)(i) of the Labour Relations Act, and that the motion was premature because no discipline had yet been imposed.

The Board dismissed the preliminary objection, finding that the threat of discipline was specifically raised in the grievances, giving the Board jurisdiction to consider interim relief, and that grieving a threat of discipline before it is carried out is not premature.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of the grievor.

A hearing was scheduled before the Grievance Settlement Board.

Despite numerous messages and correspondence from the union and its counsel, the grievor failed to attend the hearing and did not assist in preparation.

After waiting an hour, the union withdrew the grievance.

The union brought an application for interim compensation pending the hearing of six grievances alleging improper suspension without pay.

The interim application hearing commenced on September 5, 2001, but was not completed.

The Vice-Chair directed that the interim application continue on September 18, 2001, and that the hearing on the merits commence immediately thereafter to ensure a speedy conclusion.

The union filed grievances on behalf of several employees who were inadvertently bypassed for overtime opportunities.

The employer conceded the collective agreement was breached but argued the appropriate remedy was an in-kind offer of future overtime rather than monetary damages.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that an in-kind remedy was inappropriate because the missed overtime was assigned to casual employees outside the full-time group entitled to it, and offering future overtime to the grievors would negatively affect the rights of other employees on the rotational list.

The grievances were allowed and the employer was directed to compensate the grievors for their monetary losses.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the Employer to change the employment status of the grievors, who were registered nurses working as classified regular part-time employees, to permanent classified full-time effective February 12, 2001.

The decision was issued without reasons at the direction of the parties.

The grievor, an Examination/Administrative Clerk with 23 years of service, was terminated for allegedly soliciting $1,000 from a candidate in exchange for a passing grade on a trade certification exam.

The union grieved the termination, arguing the employer failed to establish just cause with clear and cogent evidence.

The arbitrator found the candidate's testimony credible and the grievor's denials unconvincing.

Concluding that the grievor compromised the integrity of the examination process and committed a serious breach of trust, the arbitrator upheld the discharge and dismissed the grievance.

The union filed grievances alleging the employer violated the collective agreement by failing to use reasonable or best efforts to persuade receiving hospitals to keep transferred employees in the union's pension plan.

Six hospitals applied for third-party standing to participate in the arbitration hearing, arguing the outcome could have significant financial repercussions for them.

The arbitrator reviewed the case law on third-party standing, distinguishing between employees governed by a collective agreement, third-party unions in jurisdictional disputes, and third-party contractors.

The arbitrator concluded the hospitals' financial interest was analogous to that of a contractor and did not confer an entitlement to notice or standing.

The applications for standing were denied.

The union filed a grievance alleging the employer violated the collective agreement by offering a vacant position to the second-place candidate from a recent job competition without re-posting the position.

The first-place candidate had accepted the position but subsequently vacated it.

The union argued that the collective agreement provision allowing the employer to hire qualified candidates from a previous competition within six months applied only to bargaining unit members.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding the collective agreement language clear and unambiguous, with no restriction limiting the provision's application to bargaining unit members.

The grievor filed a two-part grievance alleging the employer failed to recognize his full wage for enhanced severance and improperly paid him as a driver while he performed youth worker/court liaison duties.

The first part was settled at stage two, with the employer agreeing to include the Custodial Allowance in the termination pay calculation.

The second part was deemed inarbitrable as it dealt with a matter of classification, a position the union did not contest.

The Vice-Chairperson found he lacked jurisdiction to hear the second part of the grievance.

The grievor sought bereavement leave following the death of his great-grandmother.

The employer denied the leave, arguing that 'great-grandparent' was not explicitly listed in the collective agreement's definition of 'immediate family'.

The arbitrator found that the collective agreement used inclusive rather than exhaustive language ('shall include').

Applying a broad and purposive approach, the arbitrator concluded that a great-grandparent falls within the scope of 'immediate family', noting the inclusion of various in-law relationships and the direct line of consanguinity.

The grievance was allowed.

The Employer raised a preliminary objection to the arbitrability of a grievance concerning shift premiums for overtime hours, arguing that the Union was barred from proceeding because a prior grievance on the same issue had been withdrawn at the complaint stage.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the objection, finding that the mere withdrawal of a grievance at an early stage, without explicit agreement to the Employer's interpretation of the collective agreement, does not constitute issue estoppel, res judicata, or abandonment.

The grievance was permitted to proceed.

The union filed a grievance alleging that a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the private operation of a new correctional facility did not adequately protect the seniority rights of transferring employees.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that article 6C.3.4 of the collective agreement mandates the recognition of Ontario Public Service (OPS) seniority by a receiving employer, even if they do not otherwise have a seniority system.

The Board further held that RFP employees must be able to assert their OPS seniority against non-RFP employees.

Finally, the Board concluded that the collective agreement precludes 'end-tailing' of RFP employees by a receiving employer bound by an existing collective agreement.

The union filed a policy grievance challenging the employer's inclusion and exclusion of certain employees in a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the operation of the new Central North Correctional Centre (CNCC).

The union argued that the employer violated the collective agreement by improperly identifying the jobs or functions attached to the services being transferred to the private sector.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the employer acted arbitrarily in failing to exclude some food-service employees and employees working with inmates serving intermittent sentences, directing the employer to amend the RFP accordingly.

The remainder of the grievance regarding other employee classifications was dismissed.

The union filed a policy grievance concerning the impending opening of the Central North Correctional Centre and the government's intention to privatize its operation.

The issue was whether employees whose work is relocated to the new facility and simultaneously privatized are entitled to reimbursement for relocation costs under Appendix 13 of the collective agreement.

The arbitrator held that Appendix 13 applies only to the relocation of operations within the public service and does not apply when work is transferred to a private-sector employer.

The grievance was dismissed.