OGSB 2003

The union grieved that the employer violated the collective agreement by failing to post a Foreman's position.

The parties referred the grievance to mediation/arbitration and requested a without-precedent decision with no reasons.

The arbitrator concluded there was no violation of the collective agreement and dismissed the grievance.

The union filed grievances alleging that the employer violated the collective agreement by not allowing employees classified as Clerks to work overtime in the classification of Warehouseman.

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

The arbitrator concluded that there was no violation of the collective agreement and dismissed the grievances.

The union grieved the employer's failure to appoint the grievor to a Building Maintenance Mechanic position, arguing he was the most senior qualified candidate.

The union brought a motion for production of the successful candidates' personnel files and their interview questions and answers.

The employer opposed, arguing the documents were not relevant.

The Grievance Settlement Board granted the motion, finding the documents were arguably relevant to establishing the threshold qualifications set by the employer and the grievor's own qualifications.

The grievor, a Tax Auditor, requested a half day of special and compassionate leave to attend a medical appointment for his daughter, who had a pre-existing medical condition.

The employer denied the request on the basis that the appointment was regular, recurring, and non-emergency, requiring the grievor to use a vacation day instead.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the employer properly applied the four-part framework for discretionary leave and reasonably concluded that the circumstances did not warrant special and compassionate leave, particularly given the availability of other leave entitlements.

The parties referred a grievance regarding the custodial responsibility allowance and the correctional category wage increase at the Toronto Jail to mediation/arbitration.

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

The grievance was dismissed.

The grievor was released from his position pursuant to s. 22 of the Public Service Act.

The union grieved the dismissal, arguing the grievor was no longer on probation.

The employer contended that the grievor's probation period was interrupted by a strike, relying on a Return to Work Protocol.

The arbitrator held that the Protocol did not take away the collective agreement right of classified employees to a fixed probation period that continues to run during absences.

Therefore, the grievor was no longer on probation at the time of his release.

The grievor, a Management Forester with the Ministry of Natural Resources, sought reimbursement for application fees and dues paid to the Ontario Professional Foresters Association after licensing became a mandatory condition of employment under the Professional Foresters Act, 2000.

The union argued that the employer was compelled to assume the costs of mandatory professional membership and that such membership was beneficial to the ministry.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding no specific provision in the collective agreement requiring reimbursement and concluding that the employer's exercise of discretion to deny the request was not improper.

The Union sought disclosure of the grievors' email accounts and lists of other employees disciplined as a result of the same workplace investigation.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the Employer to provide the requested email accounts and lists detailing the discipline of both OPSEU and non-OPSEU employees, subject to the condition that the disclosure be used solely for the purpose of the litigation.

The union filed a grievance alleging that the employer violated the collective agreement by denying the grievor's lateral transfer request to the Brockville Jail.

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 grievance.

The union applied for interim relief under s. 48(12) of the Labour Relations Act to revert to the old vacation protocol pending the disposition of a grievance challenging the employer's new province-wide vacation protocol for correctional officers.

The Grievance Settlement Board applied the two-fold test for interim relief.

Without deciding if there was an arguable case, the Board found the balance of harm favoured the employer, as reverting to the old protocol mid-year would cause significant administrative difficulties, require hiring and training new unclassified officers, and disrupt existing vacation plans, while only benefiting a minority of officers.

The motion for interim relief was denied.

The union filed a grievance alleging the employer violated the collective agreement regarding a vacation protocol and applied for interim relief.

The employer sought an order directing the union to provide further particulars of its case.

The Vice-Chair ordered the union to provide written particulars of the alleged violations, the adverse impact if interim relief is not granted, and the facts supporting its estoppel argument.

The employer was also ordered to provide particulars in response.

The parties sought determination of three questions regarding the calculation of seniority for unclassified correctional officers under a Memorandum of Agreement.

The Vice-Chair held that overtime hours do not count toward straight-time hours for seniority purposes.

Where an employee worked 40 hours but 8 were paid at overtime rates, only 32 hours count toward seniority.

For a compressed work week where 420 hours were worked and compensated at the regular rate over 10 weeks, all 420 hours count toward unclassified seniority.

The Union applied for interim relief in the form of a cease and desist order against the Employer, alleging that the Employer threatened and transferred the grievor in reprisal for raising a scheduling grievance.

The Union argued that the Employer's actions had a chilling effect on other bargaining unit members.

The Grievance Settlement Board denied the application, finding that the Union failed to establish that the balance of harm favoured granting the relief.

The Board noted that the requested order would essentially restate existing legislative prohibitions against reprisals, for which significant remedies already exist, and that granting the order would inappropriately predetermine a central issue in the case.

The union sought an interim order for disclosure relating to the rest of the Ontario Public Service regarding people performing bargaining-unit work who are not formally designated as employees.

The employer opposed the broad scope and proposed limiting disclosure to the Ministry of Health.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that disclosure at this stage should be limited to the Ministry of Health, as the union had not demonstrated reasonable grounds to suspect substantial non-compliance in other ministries not mentioned in the provincial auditor's report.

The Board directed the employer to provide the requested disclosure for the Ministry of Health.

The union sought disclosure of information regarding non-employees engaged by the employer.

Following previous disclosure orders, the parties agreed to a consent order.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued the consent order, which detailed the specific information to be disclosed, timelines for disclosure, and exclusions for certain categories of workers, such as those involved in labour relations or working in a minister's office.

The association filed a policy grievance alleging the employer violated the collective agreement by using non-bargaining unit members (such as consultants and agency employees) to perform bargaining unit work.

The association requested production of documents detailing these arrangements.

The employer objected, characterizing the request as a fishing expedition.

Relying on a provincial auditor's report that found heavy reliance on consultants in six ministries, the Grievance Settlement Board found reasonable grounds to suspect a violation and ordered initial disclosure of information for one of the six ministries to balance the need for relevant information with expedition and cost.

The union filed a grievance alleging the employer violated the collective agreement by failing to offer the grievor overtime work, claiming temporary employees performed the work instead.

During mediation-arbitration, the employer provided documentation showing no temporary employees worked overtime on the date in question.

The arbitrator, at the parties' request, issued a without-precedent decision with no reasons, dismissing the grievance.

The union filed a grievance alleging that the employer should have called in the bargaining unit maintenance mechanic on a statutory holiday to perform a minor task.

The task, which did not require specialized tools or expertise, was instead completed by a supervisor in approximately five minutes.

The parties agreed to resolve the matter through a mediation/arbitration procedure without reasons.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance.

The parties referred a grievance concerning the calculation of the grievor's seniority while employed with the Ministry of Community and Social Services to mediation/arbitration.

The parties were unable to fully resolve the issues and agreed the arbitrator should decide the case based on information presented during mediation without written reasons.

The arbitrator found the grievor was entitled to a further 75 weeks of seniority and directed the employer to amend the employment record, including retroactive vacation entitlement adjustments.

The parties referred a grievance regarding retroactive pay at the Metro West Detention Centre to mediation/arbitration.

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

The Vice-Chair dismissed the grievance.