OGSB 2004

The union filed grievances alleging sexual harassment by a managerial employee and sought his termination or transfer as a remedy.

The employer and the manager raised preliminary objections, arguing that the facts did not disclose a prima facie case of sexual harassment and that the Grievance Settlement Board lacked jurisdiction to order the discipline or discharge of a managerial employee.

The Board dismissed the manager's motion, finding a prima facie case was established.

The Board also held that it possesses the remedial jurisdiction to direct the termination or transfer of a manager in exceptional cases where absolutely necessary to effect a remedy.

However, the Board concluded that termination was not absolutely necessary in this case, though alternative remedies such as transfer or removal of supervisory powers might be appropriate.

The grievor, a customer service representative at the LCBO, was discharged after stealing a case of cognac.

He pleaded guilty to theft under $5,000.

At arbitration, the union argued that the grievor suffered from a gambling addiction that caused the theft, and requested that the discharge be substituted with an unpaid suspension under s. 48(17) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding insufficient medical or expert evidence to establish that a gambling problem caused the theft or to demonstrate a positive prognosis for rehabilitation.

The Board concluded that the grievor's actions constituted a fundamental breach of trust justifying discharge.

The union filed a grievance regarding the quantum of damages owed to employees after the employer breached the collective agreement during a divestment process.

The board previously found that the employer failed to include seniority protection for lay-off and promotion in job offers to divested employees.

The union argued damages should be based on length of service, while the employer argued for nominal or no damages.

The arbitrator held that the loss of opportunity to choose work with seniority protection was compensable and awarded damages calculated by multiplying two weeks' salary by each grievor's years of service, plus interest.

The union filed a group grievance alleging that the employer failed to provide a safe and healthy work environment due to an abusive and intimidating supervisor.

At the close of the union's case, the employer brought a motion for non-suit.

The arbitrator granted the motion and dismissed the grievance, finding that while the supervisor's alleged conduct was unpleasant, the union failed to present any evidence that the employees suffered serious illness, required medical attention, or missed work as a result, which is required to establish a prima facie breach of the collective agreement's health and safety provisions.

The Ministry alleged that the grievor breached a confidentiality provision in a settlement agreement resolving a harassment grievance.

The settlement included a $1,000 payment and a strict confidentiality clause.

A co-worker disclosed specific terms of the settlement to management, claiming the grievor had told her.

The grievor denied disclosing the terms.

Applying the Faryna v Chorny standard for assessing credibility, the arbitrator found it more probable than not that the grievor had disclosed the terms to the co-worker, given the accuracy of the co-worker's knowledge.

The arbitrator declared a breach of the confidentiality provision and ordered the grievor to return the $1,000 settlement payment to deter future breaches.

The union sought an interim relief order directing the employer to place the grievor in an appropriate position accommodating his medical restrictions, outside of a correctional facility, pending the hearing of his grievance alleging harassment and discrimination based on sexual orientation.

The employer opposed, arguing the relief was akin to a final order and should only preserve the status quo.

The Grievance Settlement Board held it had jurisdiction to order interim relief requiring positive action under s. 48(12)(i) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

Finding that the union had an arguable case and that the potential harm to the grievor's health and finances outweighed any inconvenience to the employer, the Board granted the motion and ordered the employer to make best efforts to accommodate the grievor within 30 days, or place him back on the payroll.

The grievors, designated to provide emergency services during the 2002 Ontario public service work stoppage, claimed standby pay for time not actually worked during the strike.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievances, relying on a previous decision (OPSEU and Management Board Secretariat, GSB No. 2002-2427) which addressed the identical issue.

The union filed a grievance regarding a disciplinary matter that resulted in a written reprimand and lost overtime opportunities for the grievor.

The parties referred the matter to mediation/arbitration and requested a decision without reasons.

The arbitrator ordered that the written reprimand be replaced with a non-disciplinary letter of counsel to remain on file for no longer than twelve months.

The arbitrator also ordered the employer to compensate the grievor for missed overtime opportunities by paying 90 hours of overtime pay.

The union filed a policy grievance concerning the interpretation of the collective agreement regarding relocation expenses.

The union argued that employees who relocate their residences due to a change in an operation's headquarters beyond a 40-kilometer radius are entitled to relocation expenses without having to meet the 125-kilometer residential move requirement set out in the employer's Relocation Expenses Directive.

The employer maintained that the directive's 125-kilometer requirement applied.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that the collective agreement clearly incorporated the employer's relocation policy, which included the 125-kilometer distance requirement for reimbursement of residential moving expenses.

The grievors, unclassified correctional officers working a compressed work week schedule, grieved that they were not paid overtime for weeks in which they routinely worked 60 hours.

The union did not dispute that a compressed work week agreement was in place precluding overtime except where employees worked in excess of their scheduled hours.

The grievance was dismissed through an expedited mediation/arbitration procedure without written reasons.

The grievor filed two grievances alleging the employer violated the collective agreement by failing to distribute overtime fairly and equitably.

The grievor complained he was not offered certain overtime shifts despite indicating a general willingness to work overtime.

However, the grievor was on vacation at the time, and the shifts in question were the very shifts he would have been scheduled to work but for his vacation.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievances as being without merit, issuing a decision without reasons pursuant to the expedited mediation/arbitration procedure under the collective agreement.

The grievor was terminated for intimidating and verbally and physically assaulting employees at the London Retail Service Centre.

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

The arbitrator found that while the discharge would ordinarily be upheld, the grievor's clear disciplinary record and willingness to seek counselling warranted reinstatement on strict terms.

The grievance was allowed, and the grievor was reinstated without back pay, subject to conditions including mandatory anger management counselling, a written apology, and a two-year strict discipline condition regarding workplace violence.

The grievor, a Maintenance Mechanic III, filed a grievance alleging that his layoff notice violated the collective agreement and MERC agreements concerning conversions of unclassified staff.

The Employer had previously settled a grievance with another employee, assigning him to the only classified Maintenance Mechanic III position at the facility.

The arbitrator found that the other employee had more seniority than the grievor and was properly assigned the position in accordance with the collective agreement and the MERC Rollover Agreement.

The grievance was dismissed.

The union filed a grievance regarding a disciplinary matter that resulted in a written reprimand for the grievor.

The parties referred the grievance to mediation/arbitration and requested a decision without reasons.

The arbitrator ordered that the written reprimand be replaced with a non-disciplinary letter of counsel to remain on the grievor's file for no longer than twelve months from the date of the incident.

The union filed grievances regarding a disciplinary matter that resulted in a lengthy suspension and a written reprimand for the grievors.

The parties referred the grievances to mediation/arbitration and requested a decision without reasons.

The arbitrator ordered that the written reprimand be replaced with a non-disciplinary letter of counsel to remain on file for no longer than twelve months.

The arbitrator further ordered the employer to pay each grievor $800 without deductions and credit each with a statutory holiday credit.

The union filed grievances seeking that the grievor be certified as a use-of-force instructor.

The parties referred the matter to mediation/arbitration and requested a decision without reasons.

The arbitrator directed the employer to complete the outstanding certification training for the grievor as soon as practical, after which the grievor would be permitted to resume regular instructor duties.

The union filed grievances alleging the performance of bargaining unit work and seeking compensation for missed overtime opportunities.

The parties referred the matter to mediation/arbitration and requested a decision without reasons.

The arbitrator directed the employer to compensate one grievor with sixteen hours' pay and dismissed the other grievance.

The union filed grievances alleging that the employer violated the community escort agreement and overtime protocol at the Ottawa Carleton Detention Centre on May 7, 2004.

The parties referred the matter to mediation/arbitration and requested a decision without reasons.

The arbitrator found that the employer failed to follow the overtime protocol for calling in community escorts and ordered compensation for the missed overtime opportunities.

The union filed grievances alleging the employer violated the collective agreement regarding hours of work, seeking compensation and credits for missed wages.

The parties referred the grievances to mediation/arbitration and requested a decision without reasons.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievances, finding the union's argument could not succeed.

The Union filed a grievance alleging the Employer violated Article 45 of the collective agreement by failing to properly advise employees of their vacation and attendance credits.

The parties proceeded to mediation/arbitration and requested a decision without reasons.

The arbitrator found the Union satisfied its onus, holding that while the Employer can offer access to credit information through the WIN system, it must do so in a manner that satisfies the collective agreement.

The Employer was ordered to provide the information in a more meaningful way if access is limited by availability, knowledge, or training.