OGSB 2003

The grievor, a correctional officer, was discharged following allegations that he asked a female intermittent inmate to take her clothes off and invited her to meet him at a restaurant outside the institution.

The employer also alleged he made a discriminatory remark during the investigation.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the employer's identification of the grievor as the perpetrator was fundamentally flawed, as the complainant's description was insufficient and another officer with a similar name was on duty in the area.

The Board concluded the allegations were not proven and directed the grievor's reinstatement.

The union brought grievances on behalf of unclassified court reporters and clerks, asserting they were improperly denied conversion to full-time status.

The parties submitted three questions for determination regarding the interpretation of the collective agreement's conversion provisions.

The arbitrator held that the employer is not required to pool the hours of unclassified employees to fulfill the conversion requirements, as the agreement applies to individual employees.

Regarding 'same work,' the arbitrator found that working under multiple contracts or in different locations does not necessarily sever the sameness of the work, but different classifications generally do.

Finally, the arbitrator determined that only the leaves of absence explicitly listed in the collective agreement for unclassified employees count as 'authorized leaves' for calculating conversion hours.

The union filed three grievances on behalf of the grievor alleging improper displacement, violation of seniority provisions, and discrimination.

At the hearing, the grievor, supported by her father, refused to testify.

As the union was unable to put forward any evidence to substantiate the allegations without the grievor's testimony, the employer brought a motion to dismiss.

The Vice-Chair granted the motion and dismissed the grievances due to a lack of evidence.

In a grievance arbitration concerning a 20-day suspension, the union moved for a non-suit at the close of the employer's case.

The employer argued the union should be put to its election as to whether it would call evidence.

The Grievance Settlement Board reviewed its jurisprudence and that of the Ontario Labour Relations Board, concluding that while there is no uniform practice, the Board has the discretion to entertain a non-suit motion without requiring an election based on considerations of expedition, fairness, and the Board's own concerns about the strength of the case.

The Board declined to put the union to its election but ultimately dismissed the non-suit motion without providing reasons, to avoid unfairness to the employer.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss six grievances alleging unjust discipline, arguing that no discipline had been imposed.

The Vice-Chair divided the grievances into two categories.

For three grievances involving suspensions with pay, the Vice-Chair deferred the determination until all evidence could be heard.

For the remaining three grievances, which complained of specific letters, the Vice-Chair found no arguable basis that the letters constituted discipline and dismissed those grievances.

In a pre-hearing motion regarding 28 grievances, the Employer sought to dismiss three grievances for the Union's failure to provide particulars and to strike portions of the Union's pleadings relating to events from 11 to 17 years prior.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the three grievances, noting the grievor's inability to recall any details and the Union's failure to comply with prior orders to provide particulars.

The Board also struck the impugned paragraphs from the pleadings, finding the extreme temporal gap would cause significant prejudice to the Employer and that the evidence had negligible probative value.

The grievor failed to attend a scheduled hearing before the Grievance Settlement Board.

The Board had previously ordered that failure to attend would result in dismissal of the grievances barring exceptional circumstances.

The grievor sent a fax claiming inability to attend due to family care responsibilities, but the Board found this did not constitute exceptional circumstances, especially given her prior communications and knowledge of the hearing date.

The grievances were dismissed.

The grievor failed to attend a scheduled hearing before the Grievance Settlement Board, despite a prior order stating that failure to attend without exceptional circumstances would result in dismissal.

The union confirmed that the grievor had received notice of the hearing.

Finding no exceptional circumstances, the Vice-Chair dismissed the grievances.

The grievor's original position was improperly classified.

While a classification grievance was pending, he promoted to a different position.

The original position was later reclassified to a higher pay level, resulting in a retroactive wage increase for the period before he changed jobs.

The grievor sought compensation for the ongoing difference in pay between his new job and the reclassified original job.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the loss of income was caused by the combination of the employer's erroneous classification and the grievor's subsequent conduct in applying for another job, making the loss too remote a consequence of the breach of contract to be compensable.

The union advanced grievances on behalf of four employees, alleging they were unfairly denied a step-to-step increase and instead only received a 3 per cent promotional increase when moving to a new wage grid.

At the hearing, the union conceded there was insufficient evidence to support the allegation of unfair treatment.

The Vice-Chair dismissed this component of the grievances.

A separate claim regarding one grievor's reclassification remained outstanding and was scheduled for a future hearing.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued an interim ruling regarding the implementation of a previous decision on the merits.

The parties had not implemented several orders and directions from the prior decision.

The Board recorded the employer's undertakings to issue written apologies and provide statements by specified dates.

The Board also ordered the union and grievor to provide completed medical functional abilities forms and specialist opinions to the employer, subject to strict confidentiality.

The grievor, a Correctional Officer with asthma and a sensitivity to cigarette smoke, required accommodation after it was determined he could not be accommodated at his home position at the Toronto East Detention Centre.

The Employer offered a position at the Toronto West Detention Centre, which the grievor rejected.

The Grievance Settlement Board determined that the appropriate placement for the grievor was at the Brookside Youth Centre.

The Board also dismissed the Union's claim that the grievor was entitled to a mileage rate for the additional 19 kilometers he would be required to travel to Brookside.

The union sought compensation for a grievor's lost promotional opportunities and lost overtime arising from the employer's failure to accommodate his sensitivity to second-hand smoke.

The arbitrator dismissed the claim for lost promotional opportunities, finding the employer properly denied an acting position that would have placed the grievor in a smoke-filled environment.

The arbitrator granted the claim for lost overtime in part, awarding compensation based on an average of 5 lost overtime hours per month since 1994.

The parties resolved some outstanding issues arising from grievances filed by the grievor, a Correctional Officer with asthma who requires a smoke-free workplace.

The Grievance Settlement Board determined three remaining issues: (1) the Employer's offer of accommodation at a facility further from the grievor's home was not unreasonable based solely on the additional travel time and distance; (2) the grievor was entitled to interest on the amount paid for credits used to top up sick leave; and (3) the grievor was entitled to compensation for statutory holidays missed due to the Employer's failure to accommodate him.

The grievor, a Correctional Officer with asthma and a sensitivity to cigarette smoke, filed grievances alleging the Employer failed to accommodate his handicap by not providing a smoke-free environment at the Toronto Jail.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that despite assigning the grievor to designated non-smoking areas, the Employer failed to adequately enforce its smoking policy, resulting in frequent exposure to smoke by staff and managers.

The Board concluded the Employer failed to accommodate the grievor to the point of undue hardship and ordered compensation for losses resulting from absences caused by smoke exposure.