OGSB 2002

The grievor, who was receiving Long Term Income Protection (LTIP) benefits due to a disability, alleged discrimination under the Human Rights Code because a retroactive salary increase applied to his former position was not reflected in his LTIP benefits or pension contributions.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, applying the Court of Appeal's reasoning in Orillia Soldiers Memorial Hospital.

The Board held that the differential treatment was based on the grievor's absence from work, not his disability, and that the Code does not require employers to provide special compensation measures for employees unable to work.

The union filed a grievance regarding holiday compensation for full-time, classified employees designated to provide essential or emergency services during an OPSEU strike spanning Good Friday and Easter Monday.

The Grievance Settlement Board determined the general rules for applying the collective agreement to these employees.

The Board held that emergency workers were covered by the collective agreement only between being scheduled to work and completing all scheduled work.

Essential workers who performed essential services were covered by the collective agreement for the entire duration of the strike.

The specific application of these rules to holiday compensation was deferred.

The parties agreed to a mediation/arbitration process to resolve multiple grievances filed by the union on behalf of the grievor.

The Vice-Chair issued a decision without reasons, directing the employer to assign the grievor as a permanent full-time Customer Service Representative to a store in the London geographical area.

The order fully and finally disposed of all the noted grievances.

The union filed a grievance regarding the denial of WSIB benefits.

The parties referred the matter to mediation/arbitration and consented to a without prejudice decision with no reasons.

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

The grievor alleged sexual harassment by a supervisor at the Kenora Jail, in breach of the collective agreement.

Following an internal investigation that confirmed the allegations, the supervisor was disciplined and reassigned.

The parties proceeded to mediation/arbitration, agreeing to a decision without reasons.

The arbitrator found that the grievor's rights were breached and ordered the employer to pay $2,000 for mental anguish pursuant to section 41(1) of the Human Rights Code, along with other remedial orders.

The union filed six grievances alleging that the grievors were improperly denied overtime and statutory holiday pay for a shift worked on December 31, 1999, and January 1, 2000.

The employer argued that the grievors were paid in accordance with Article IHC4.1 of the collective agreement, which stipulates that a shift not commencing and ending on the same calendar day is considered to fall wholly within the calendar day on which it commences.

The Grievance Settlement Board agreed with the employer, finding that Article IHC4.1 applied and the grievors were appropriately compensated.

The grievances were dismissed.

The union filed a group grievance claiming compensation for vandalism to employees' vehicles in the workplace parking lot.

In an interim award, the arbitrator held that the alleged facts did not constitute a violation of the collective agreement.

The union argued that the arbitrator nevertheless had jurisdiction under the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Weber v. Ontario Hydro.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, holding that Weber does not expand arbitral jurisdiction beyond controversies governed by the express or implied terms of a collective agreement.

Because the property damage claim did not arise under the agreement, the arbitrator lacked jurisdiction.

The parties referred a conversion grievance to mediation/arbitration under Article 22.16 of the Collective Agreement.

The parties requested a without prejudice decision with no reasons.

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

The Union grieved the discharge of a hotline operator who was terminated for an alleged conflict of interest involving her ownership of a retail store.

During the investigation, the Employer used videotape surveillance to observe the grievor working at her store while she was on sick leave.

The Union objected to the admissibility of the surveillance evidence, arguing it was an unreasonable intrusion into the grievor's privacy.

The Grievance Settlement Board applied a two-part test and found that the Employer had reasonable cause to suspect a conflict of interest and misuse of sick leave, making the decision to undertake surveillance reasonable.

The evidence was ruled admissible.

The union filed a group grievance alleging that the grievors' continuous service dates should include a period from 1983 to 1986 when they worked at the Southwest Regional Centre as nominal independent contractors or third-party employees.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that even if the grievors were in substance Crown employees during that period, they were not appointed to the unclassified service as required by the collective agreement for seniority credit.

The Grievance Settlement Board agreed, finding that the collective agreement only grants credit for specific types of Crown employment, namely appointment to the unclassified service under the Public Service Act.

As the grievors were not so appointed during the disputed period, the grievance was dismissed.

The union filed conversion grievances on behalf of employees at the Sault Ste.

Marie Jail, alleging a violation of the collective agreement.

The parties referred the matter to mediation/arbitration and requested a without prejudice decision with no reasons.

The arbitrator found no violation of the collective agreement and dismissed the grievances.

The union filed a grievance alleging the employer failed to make pension contributions on behalf of the grievor while he was qualified to receive long-term income protection (LTIP) benefits, pursuant to the collective agreement.

The employer raised a preliminary objection, arguing the grievance was barred by a full and final release the grievor signed when settling a civil action against the insurance company for LTIP benefits.

The Grievance Settlement Board upheld the preliminary objection, finding that the claim for pension contributions was directly or indirectly connected to the obligations under the LTIP policy, which the grievor had fully released in exchange for a $150,000 settlement.

The grievance was dismissed.

The parties settled a competition grievance with Minutes of Settlement requiring the grievor to pass a spreadsheet test similar to the original competition question.

The grievor failed the administered test, and the union requested a hearing, asserting the test was not similar.

The Vice-Chair agreed the test was not similar and directed that a new, similar test be administered, with the parties agreeing on the terms for the new test.

The employer brought a preliminary motion objecting to the Grievance Settlement Board's jurisdiction to award monetary damages to a correctional officer who was assaulted by inmates.

The employer argued that the damages arose from a workplace accident and were exclusively compensable under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act (WSIA).

The Board held that it lacked jurisdiction to award damages for the accident itself, as those were covered by WSIA.

However, the Board found it had jurisdiction to hear claims regarding the employer's conduct after the assault and to award non-monetary remedies for breaches of the collective agreement's health and safety provisions, provided those claims were not compensable under WSIA.

The Board also ruled it had no jurisdiction to award punitive damages.

The parties reconvened to resolve an implementation dispute regarding Minutes of Settlement that restored the grievor's full-time classified status.

The union argued the employer improperly pro-rated the grievor's vacation and sick leave credits by applying part-time provisions.

The Grievance Settlement Board found the settlement language clear and unambiguous, holding that specific clauses expressly limited the grievor's short-term sickness and vacation accruals based on her former regular part-time status and hours worked.

The grievance was dismissed.

The union challenged the employer's selection of seven grievors for promotion to Senior Corporations Tax Auditors, alleging non-compliance with a previous Board order.

The previous order required the employer to select the most qualified candidates in good faith and precluded grievances comparing qualifications.

The Vice-Chair reviewed the information and concluded that the employer's selection could have been made in good faith on an objective basis, as all candidates had strong credentials.

The grievance was dismissed.

The union referred pay administration grievances to mediation/arbitration under the collective agreement.

At the hearing, the parties agreed to the arbitrator's jurisdiction and requested a without prejudice decision with no reasons.

The arbitrator found no violation of the collective agreement and dismissed the grievances.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss a grievance filed in October 1996 regarding alleged inhumane treatment and harassment that occurred prior to November 1988.

The grievor claimed the employer's actions caused his mental illness and inability to work, leading to his placement on Long Term Income Protection (LTIP) and CPP disability.

The Grievance Settlement Board found the grievance was not timely filed, as the circumstances giving rise to the complaint were known to the grievor by August 1991 at the latest.

The Board declined to exercise its discretion under section 48(16) of the Labour Relations Act to extend the time limits, noting the extreme delay of over five years, the lack of due diligence, and the substantial prejudice to the employer.

The grievance was dismissed.

The grievor, who was receiving Long Term Income Protection (LTIP) benefits, claimed discrimination on the basis of handicap because his LTIP benefits and pension contributions were not increased to reflect a salary increase that came into effect after he became disabled.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, applying the Court of Appeal's reasoning in Orillia Soldiers Memorial Hospital.

The Board found that the differential treatment was based on work, not disability, and that the grievor was not treated less favourably than able-bodied employees absent from work.

The union referred grievances regarding seniority calculations at the Sault Ste.

Marie Jail to mediation/arbitration.

The parties requested a without prejudice decision with no reasons.

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