OGSB 2003

The union requested a production order for certain documents and records in the control of the employer.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the documents sought may be relevant to the issues and directed the employer to produce attendance cards, job descriptions, weekly schedules, temporary employee assignments, and call-in sheets.

The union filed multiple grievances alleging that the employer improperly assigned overtime.

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

The Vice-Chair issued an award granting compensating hours to each of the grievors, to be paid at straight time minus regular deductions.

The parties referred a grievance regarding pay deductions and union dues at the Metro West Detention Centre to mediation/arbitration.

The parties requested a without prejudice decision with no reasons.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance.

The union filed a grievance regarding the conversion of unclassified driver examiners to classified status under the collective agreement.

The issue was whether the 54 days of the 2002 OPSEU strike should count toward the 18-month service requirement for conversion.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that a literal reading of the collective agreement required the performance of work, meaning the strike period did not count.

The Board also found that the employer's approach did not violate the settlement agreement or the implied prohibition against arbitrary and discriminatory treatment.

In an interim decision regarding the admissibility of extrinsic evidence, the Union sought to introduce evidence to interpret various agreements governing CL-215 water bomber pilots, specifically the 1995 Memorandum of Understanding.

The Employer argued the agreements were clear and unambiguous, precluding extrinsic evidence.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the 1995 MOU's silence on what agreement applied to the CL-215 pilots created a potential ambiguity or mistake.

Applying the principles of contract interpretation and the parol evidence rule, the Board ruled that extrinsic evidence was admissible to aid in interpreting the 1995 MOU and the term 'irregular hours', but not for the 1991 Minute of Understanding, which was found to be unambiguous.

The union filed a grievance alleging the improper denial of sick pay.

The matter was dealt with through a mediation/arbitration procedure under Article 22.16 of the collective agreement.

The Vice-Chair, acting as mediator/arbitrator, dismissed the grievance without providing reasons, as requested by the parties.

The union filed grievances alleging that the employer breached the collective agreement and Memoranda of Settlement regarding the restructuring and closure of correctional facilities.

The grievors claimed entitlement to Article 20 positions that became vacant after the common surplus date.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievances, finding nothing in the agreement obliging the employer to fill Article 20 positions that became vacant after the common surplus date.

The parties referred job competition and discrimination grievances to mediation/arbitration under the collective agreement.

The parties requested a without precedent decision with no reasons.

The arbitrator allowed the grievances and directed the employer to appoint the grievor to the position of 'C' Store Manager at a specified salary step, resolving all outstanding claims related to the grievances.

The Union grieved the dismissal of a probationary Programmer Analyst, alleging a violation of the collective agreement's just cause provision.

The grievor was hired for an intermediate-level position but demonstrated significant performance deficiencies and a lack of basic programming skills during his probationary period.

The Grievance Settlement Board applied the Bell standard for probationary employees, finding that the Employer provided a fair and reasonable orientation, communicated performance expectations, provided reasonable assistance, and gave the grievor an opportunity to improve.

The Board concluded that the Employer's decision to terminate the grievor for failing to meet the expected standards was reasonable and established just cause.

The grievance was dismissed.

The Union filed grievances alleging the Employer failed to inform employees about their opportunity to buy back pension service during the 1989-1991 window, or provided incorrect information.

The Employer moved to dismiss the grievances, arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction because pension matters were not governed by the collective agreement.

The Grievance Settlement Board agreed, finding that the essential character of the dispute involved statutory pension rights and agreements outside the collective agreement.

As the dispute did not arise from the interpretation, application, administration, or alleged contravention of the collective agreement, the grievances were deemed inarbitrable and dismissed.

The parties entered into a Memorandum of Settlement to address applications before the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding events at the Toronto West Detention Centre.

The Vice-Chair of the Grievance Settlement Board was granted jurisdiction to determine employees' entitlement to pay for shifts commencing on November 6, 2001.

The Vice-Chair ordered the parties to meet locally to determine who is properly on the 'B' list, and directed that those properly on the list shall have the equivalent of one-third of their pay for that shift returned to the Ministry.

During a grievance arbitration regarding employees' entitlement to pay for a specific shift, the Union requested an adjournment because the Local Union President, who was acting as an advisor, was hospitalized and unable to attend.

The Vice-Chair denied the blanket adjournment request, noting that the Union had three other Local Union executive board members available to instruct counsel.

The Vice-Chair ruled that the hearing could proceed with the Union's evidence, and the Union could renew its adjournment request later if disputed evidence regarding the absent advisor's conduct arose.

The union requested an adjournment of a grievance arbitration hearing because its primary advisor was hospitalized.

The employer opposed the request, noting the parties' commitment to an expeditious resolution.

The arbitrator held that the advisor's absence alone was insufficient to adjourn the hearing, as the union had three other advisors.

However, given the suddenness of the illness, the arbitrator granted the adjournment for the immediate hearing date but ordered that subsequent dates would proceed regardless.

The Union moved to have the grievance granted on the basis that relevant evidence required to advance its case was destroyed by an agent of the Ministry.

The Ministry had hired a consultant to conduct a workplace review, and the consultant destroyed all interview notes and documents pursuant to its 'best practices' policy.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the destroyed documents were highly relevant and their destruction irreparably prejudiced the Union's ability to advance its case, the Employer's ability to defend its actions, and the Board's ability to determine the merits.

Concluding that a full and fair hearing could not take place, the Board granted the grievance and ordered the grievor reinstated to his home position.

The parties scheduled mediation to deal with numerous outstanding grievances at the Windsor Jail, including claims of improperly assigned overtime work.

While many were resolved, approximately a dozen remained outstanding.

The parties agreed to have the Vice-Chair decide each grievance based on the information presented without providing written reasons.

The Vice-Chair issued rulings on each grievance, allowing some in whole or in part with compensating hours awarded, and dismissing others.

The union referred a grievance regarding Article 44.10 at the Toronto Jail to mediation/arbitration under the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act.

At the hearing, the parties requested a without prejudice decision with no reasons.

The Vice-Chair directed the employer to provide evidence of full repayment to the grievor for all affected shifts, resolving the grievance.

In a grievance arbitration under the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act, a question arose regarding the production of two specific documents from a competition file.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued an order reflecting the employer's agreement to investigate the documents, advise the union of the results, and produce any further arguably relevant documents identified by the selection panel.

The union filed a grievance alleging discrimination in a job competition at the Sudbury 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 employer brought a preliminary motion to limit the scope of evidence in a grievance alleging discrimination and a poisoned workplace.

The employer sought to exclude evidence of allegations older than one year before the grievance was filed, while the union sought to introduce evidence dating back to 1987.

The Grievance Settlement Board balanced the union's need to show a pattern of discrimination against the employer's right to defend itself, noting the grievors were aware of their rights and provided no justification for the extreme delay.

The Board ruled that evidence of alleged discrimination dating back three years before the grievances were filed (August 1998) would be admissible.

The union sought production of a Memorandum of Settlement entered into between the employer and another employee, which was currently under seal.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the employer to obtain, review, and produce the Memorandum of Settlement to union counsel, subject to the implied undertaking that it be used solely for the purposes of the current proceedings.