OGSB 2001

The union filed a grievance claiming the grievor was entitled to a shift premium for hours worked on a paid holiday.

The employer argued the collective agreement was ambiguous and sought to introduce extrinsic evidence of past practice and negotiating history to establish a latent ambiguity or estoppel.

The union objected to the admission of extrinsic evidence, arguing the language was clear.

The Grievance Settlement Board found no patent ambiguity in the collective agreement.

However, to determine whether a latent ambiguity or estoppel existed, the Board directed the employer to provide detailed particulars of the proposed extrinsic evidence before ruling on its admissibility.

The union filed a policy grievance regarding the payment of stand-by pay, which was referred to mediation/arbitration under the collective agreement.

At the request of the parties, the Vice Chair issued a without prejudice decision with no reasons.

The grievance was dismissed as no violation of the collective agreement was found.

The grievor, a part-time security guard, grieved that she was unfairly denied a full-time rotational security guard position because she lacked the required post-secondary education.

The union argued the educational requirement was unnecessary and the grievor had the skills and ability to do the job.

The employer argued the union was estopped from objecting to the requirement, the requirement was within management rights, and the grievor lacked the necessary skills.

The Grievance Settlement Board found the union was not estopped and the educational requirement was not strictly necessary, but dismissed the grievance because the union failed to prove the grievor possessed the requisite communication skills and judgement for the position.

In a discharge grievance involving allegations that the grievor improperly obtained air miles, the Union sought disclosure of the Employer's cost per reward mile.

The Employer and a third party, Loyalty Management Group Canada Inc., argued the information was highly confidential.

The Vice Chair directed the Employer to disclose the information to the Union, subject to a condition that it only be used for the arbitration proceeding.

The third party subsequently requested that the Union and grievor be required to execute a formal Undertaking with a liquidated damages clause.

The Vice Chair dismissed the third party's request, finding that the previous direction was sufficient to protect the confidential information and consistent with the Board's general approach.

The union sought to consolidate six additional grievances filed by the grievor with a November 2, 2000 group grievance alleging constructive dismissal, discrimination, and unfair discipline related to union activities.

The employer opposed consolidation, arguing the additional grievances were individual, untimely, or outside the board's jurisdiction.

The Grievance Settlement Board granted the consolidation for five of the six grievances, finding they shared a common question of fact regarding the employer's motive and alleged retaliation for union activities.

One grievance regarding incorrect pay was dismissed as moot because the issue had been resolved by a subsequent reclassification.

The union filed a grievance alleging that the grievor was temporarily assigned to perform the duties of a higher classification in violation of the collective agreement.

The employer raised a preliminary objection, arguing that the grievance was a disguised classification grievance over which the Grievance Settlement Board lacked jurisdiction.

The Vice-Chair agreed with the employer, finding that the grievor's ongoing concern was that his regular assignments constituted the work of a higher classification, rather than a temporary change in duties.

As the collective agreement and the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act reserve classification disputes for the Joint System Subcommittee, the preliminary motion was granted and the grievance was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The grievor filed a grievance claiming the Employer contravened the Collective Agreement regarding his placement in the Tax Auditor 4 series.

At the hearing, the Union advised the Board that it agreed with the Employer's interpretation of the relevant provisions.

As the jurisprudence establishes that the Board only has jurisdiction to deal with disputes between the parties (the Union and the Employer), and there was no dispute between them, the Board found it lacked jurisdiction to deal with the grievance.

The grievance was dismissed.

The Union filed a grievance alleging the Employer breached section 5.3 of Appendix 18 of the collective agreement by failing to ensure that receiving employers recognized seniority rights for lay-off and job competitions in Requests for Proposals (RFPs).

The parties sought an interpretation of section 5.3 prior to a hearing on remedy.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that the Employer is obligated to require new employers to provide core seniority protections in their job offers to transferring employees, specifically a 'relatively equal' clause for job competitions and a 'last hired, first laid off' provision for lay-offs.

The Grievance Settlement Board was asked to interpret section 5.2 of Appendix 18 of the collective agreement between the parties.

The issue was whether employees who exited the Ontario Public Service (OPS) under section 5.2, received surplus entitlements, and subsequently secured a new position in the OPS, were required to repay those monies pursuant to Articles 20.2.4 or 20.2.5.

The Union argued that these articles conferred a benefit and should not apply, while the Employer argued they were obligations.

The Board held that while section 5.2 removed Article 20 assistance for exiting employees, it did not prevent them from competing for open positions.

If successful, the collective agreement applies to them, and they are obligated to repay the monies under Articles 20.2.4 and 20.2.5, after which their continuous service date is recalculated.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued a brief decision regarding the interpretation of a collective agreement.

The Board held that an employee surplused under Section 5.2 of Appendix 18 who subsequently secures a position within the Ontario Public Service is required to repay monies in accordance with Articles 20.2.4 or 20.2.5.

Furthermore, the employee's service date must be calculated as required by those articles.

Reasons were to follow.

The grievor, a full-time employee working part-time hours under an accommodated work plan due to a disability, was denied paid sick leave because she did not work twenty consecutive days as required by the collective agreement.

The union grieved, arguing she met the requirement or, alternatively, that denying her sick leave violated the Ontario Human Rights Code.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that while the grievor did not meet the strict collective agreement requirement for full-time employees, applying that requirement to her constituted discrimination based on handicap.

The Board held that for the purposes of sick leave, the grievor must be compared to regular part-time employees and earn sick leave in proportion to the hours she worked.

The union filed a group grievance challenging the employer's decision to delay and subsequently cancel a January 1999 job competition for Senior Corporation Tax Auditor positions.

The employer argued the cancellation was justified by a prior arbitration decision, the creation of a new Tax Auditor class series, a regional boundaries review, and restructuring of the electricity sector.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that while some of these factors justified delaying the competition and cancelling it for positions that were eliminated, they did not constitute sound and practical reasons to cancel the competition in its entirety for the remaining vacancies.

The grievance was allowed and the parties were directed to negotiate a remedy.

The employer raised preliminary objections to a four-part grievance, arguing the first three grounds were untimely and the fourth was barred by section 6 of the Public Sector Salary Disclosure Act, 1996.

The union conceded both the untimeliness and the lack of jurisdiction.

Finding no difference between the parties as required by section 7(3) of the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act, the Grievance Settlement Board concluded it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the grievance.

The union grieved that the employer contravened the collective agreement's requirement to defer a classification system overhaul by introducing a modernized job description format and a new internal job evaluation decision-making process.

The arbitrator found that the new internal process merely changed who made decisions on the employer's behalf and did not alter the classification system itself.

Furthermore, the modernized job description format only made changes of form, not substance, and did not affect the application of the existing classification standards.

The grievance was dismissed, though the arbitrator noted the Board would have jurisdiction to enforce the collective agreement's classification provisions despite section 52 of the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act.

The grievor was absent from work for three years due to alleged illness.

The employer required the grievor to allow its medical doctor to speak with her doctor to verify her inability to work and explore accommodation.

The grievor, citing privacy concerns, consistently refused to provide consent and refused to return to work.

The employer terminated her employment for just cause.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, holding that while the grievor had a right to medical privacy, her refusal to allow the employer to verify her medical information gave the employer the right to insist she return to work.

By refusing to return, she breached a fundamental term of employment, justifying her termination.

The union brought a motion alleging the employer abused process by breaching an undertaking to search for suitable positions for the grievor throughout the Ontario Public Service (OPS), rather than just within the Ministry of Health.

The union sought costs, general damages, and an order directing the search.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the employer had undertaken to search throughout the OPS concurrently with the Ministry search.

The Board directed the employer to identify possible job matches across the OPS by a specified date, but found it premature to award general damages or rule on the adequacy of the search, and reserved judgment on costs.

The union grieved the employer's decision to award a posted Investigator position to an external candidate rather than the grievor, who had performed the identical role for ten years.

The Grievance Settlement Board found the selection process fatally flawed because the employer relied almost entirely on interview scores, failed to assess the candidates' knowledge of specific environmental statutes required by the position specification, and ignored the grievor's past performance appraisals and supervisory references.

The grievance was allowed, and the employer was directed to re-run the competition among the original applicants.

The grievor failed to attend two scheduled hearing dates for his six grievances without providing adequate notice or justification.

The employer moved to dismiss the grievances for lack of prosecution.

The Grievance Settlement Board found the grievor's conduct to be an abuse of process and dismissed the grievances.

The union alleged that the employer violated a settlement agreement by failing to consider the grievor's application for an open competition in good faith.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, arguing the settlement agreement only granted the grievor the right to apply to restricted competitions.

The Grievance Settlement Board agreed with the employer, finding that the clear language of the settlement agreement was limited to restricted competitions and did not apply to open competitions.

The grievance was dismissed.

The Union filed a group grievance alleging that the Ministry of Finance applied a travel policy in a discriminatory and arbitrary fashion.

The Employer requested particulars of the alleged discriminatory treatment.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued an interim decision ordering the Union to provide specific particulars, including the names of individuals affected, dates of occurrences, and details of how the policy was allegedly broken, by April 30, 2002.