OGSB 2003

The Union grieved the Employer's decision to fill a Conservation Officer vacancy in Ignace without a posting or competition, relying on Article 6.1.2 of the collective agreement.

The Employer had used the results of a recent competition for a similar position in Dryden.

The Union argued that a vacancy in a different location could not be considered a 'similar vacancy' under the agreement.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that recent amendments to Article 6.1.2 removed language restricting its application to vacancies at the same worksite, thereby allowing the Employer to rely on the prior competition.

The union filed group grievances alleging that the employer violated the collective agreement when two members of management staff performed an overtime assignment.

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

The arbitrator found that the employer failed to follow the local overtime protocol.

The employer was ordered to pay $400.00 to Local 467 as compensation for the lost overtime wages.

The union filed a policy grievance challenging the employer's practice of requiring employees to submit to medical examinations by a doctor of the employer's choosing.

The collective agreement allowed the employer to require medical examinations but did not explicitly state the employer could choose the doctor.

The arbitrator held that, absent clear contractual or statutory authority, the employer does not have a general right to compel an employee to be examined by a doctor of the employer's choice when the employee objects, as such examinations are intrusive and implicate privacy rights.

The union filed a grievance claiming call-back pay for an essential services worker who was called into work on an unscheduled day during a strike.

The employer had paid the basic hourly rate for the hours worked.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that under the essential services agreement, the collective agreement applied without interruption during the strike.

Therefore, the grievor was entitled to call-back pay at time and a half for a minimum of four hours, as specified in the collective agreement.

The grievor, a Correctional Officer, filed a grievance claiming the employer violated the collective agreement by refusing to provide him with an additional unclassified contract at Rideau Correctional Centre while he was simultaneously employed at Brockville Jail.

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

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

The parties referred a grievance regarding the issuance of two concurrent unclassified correctional officer contracts to mediation/arbitration.

The Vice-Chair directed the parties to provide written submissions on the matter by July 18, 2003.

The union filed a policy grievance claiming essential and emergency workers were entitled to holiday pay for Good Friday and Easter Monday, which fell during a 2002 strike.

The arbitrator clarified an earlier interim award, ruling that emergency workers were covered by the collective agreement only in the interval between being scheduled to work and completing all assigned shifts.

For employees who were covered but worked reduced hours, the arbitrator reviewed arbitral jurisprudence on holiday pay during temporary absences and deferred a final ruling pending further submissions on whether a 'reasonable nexus' existed between the holiday pay claimed and the performance of work.

The union filed a grievance alleging the employer failed to make reasonable efforts to ensure continuing employment for affected engineers following the divestment of social housing functions to municipalities.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that while the employer made significant efforts to secure job offers with the new employers, it failed in its reasonable efforts obligation by notifying OPSEU of potential job opportunities but failing to similarly notify PEGO or the affected engineers.

The matter was remitted to the parties on the issue of remedy.

The union filed a policy grievance and an individual grievance alleging the employer failed to comply with its obligations to make reasonable efforts regarding continuing employment when it divested social housing functions to municipalities.

The union argued that under paragraph 5(1)(a) of Appendix 'A' of the collective agreement, affected employees should have been offered jobs with the new employer at no less than 85% of their salary.

The employer argued that paragraph 5(1)(a) only applied to transfers by request for proposal (RFP) or tender, which did not occur here as the transfer was by operation of law under the Social Housing Reform Act, 2000.

The arbitrator agreed with the employer, finding that the mandatory obligation in paragraph 5(1)(a) only arises in circumstances of an RFP/tender process.

The grievance on this point was dismissed, but the employer remained subject to the general reasonable efforts obligation in paragraph 1.

The grievor requested vacation leave to avoid working with a co-worker with whom she had a personality conflict while her manager was away.

During her vacation, she discovered an acting manager had been appointed.

She subsequently requested that the last three days of her vacation be converted to paid leave under Article 49 of the collective agreement, citing a 'poisoned work environment'.

The Employer denied the request.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the grievor's discovery of a new manager did not constitute 'special or compassionate grounds' and that the Employer had exercised its discretion reasonably and in good faith.

The union filed a grievance regarding the conversion of the grievor to a Social Worker II position at the Cecil Facer Youth Centre.

The matter was referred to mediation/arbitration.

The arbitrator ordered that the grievor be converted to the Classified position of Social Worker II, with the employer continuing to provide and fund additional French language training for the grievor.

The union filed a grievance concerning the entitlement of surplus employees to retire with an actuarially unreduced pension upon reaching 'Factor 80'.

The issue was whether an employee who receives a notice of layoff by March 31, 2004, but does not reach Factor 80 until a later date, is entitled to 'bridge' to Factor 80 using unpaid leave.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that there was nothing in the collective agreement indicating that surplus employees seeking to bridge to Factor 80 should be treated differently from those bridging to Factor 90 or 60/20.

The grievance was allowed, permitting employees to use the pension bridging option to reach Surplus Factor 80 after March 31, 2004.

The union filed a grievance alleging that the employer violated the collective agreement by assigning overtime to temporary employees before offering it to full-time employees.

During the mediation-arbitration process, the employer provided documents showing that no temporary employees worked on the days in question.

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

The union grieved the employer's refusal to reimburse tax auditors for professional membership dues (CA, CMA, CGA).

During the arbitration proceedings, both parties complained about the other's approach to particulars and document production.

The Vice-Chair issued a comprehensive order requiring both parties to deliver written particulars and produce relevant documents.

The Vice-Chair also directed the employer to bring documents regarding the reimbursement of membership dues for employees in other ministries to the next hearing, deferring a final decision on their production.

The union filed grievances regarding the employer's policy on reimbursement of professional dues.

At a hearing, the Grievance Settlement Board ordered the union to provide particulars of its allegations, including claims that the employer benefits from the grievors' professional designations and that the employer acted arbitrarily or in bad faith.

The Board also directed the employer to make reasonable efforts to produce documents related to a 'Taxable Benefits FAQ' concerning the reimbursement of professional fees.

The parties referred a grievance regarding leave at the Whitby Jail to mediation/arbitration.

The parties requested a without prejudice decision with no reasons.

The arbitrator directed the employer to pay the grievor the separation allowance under Article 20 of the Collective Agreement.

The union brought a preliminary motion arguing that the employer should proceed first in a grievance alleging failure to accommodate and discrimination.

The grievor had previously been accommodated in her home position, but the employer unilaterally decided to end that arrangement and accommodate her in a lower position.

The Vice-Chair held that the employer bears the procedural onus to proceed first, as it uniquely possesses the knowledge of its operational requirements, the reasons for altering the accommodation, and what constitutes undue hardship.

The employer requested an adjournment of scheduled hearing dates pending the potential conversion of the grievor's position, which would resolve a significant aspect of the grievances.

The Grievance Settlement Board granted the adjournment, noting that the conversion issue was likely to be resolved without litigation and that the employer's representative was no longer available for the scheduled dates.

The Board directed the employer to advise the union of the conversion results by a specified date and ordered the parties to schedule a mediation day for any remaining issues.

The employer requested an adjournment of scheduled hearing dates because its representative was leaving the Ministry and no replacement was available.

The union opposed the request.

The Vice-Chair directed the employer to provide information regarding the grievor's claim for convertible service and the name of the new representative by July 8, 2003, before ruling on the adjournment request.

The parties referred a grievance regarding leave at the Whitby Jail to mediation/arbitration.

The parties requested a without prejudice decision with no reasons.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the employer to pay the grievor the separation allowance under Article 20 of the Collective Agreement.