OGSB 2004

The Union grieved the Employer's unilateral transfer of a store manager to a vacant position without posting it, alleging a violation of the Collective Agreement.

The Employer argued it had the management right to transfer employees laterally before posting vacancies, and noted the transfer accommodated the employee's personal and medical needs.

As the transferred employee appeared on his own behalf and his rights under the Human Rights Code could potentially override other considerations, the Grievance Settlement Board adjourned the proceedings to allow him time to consult counsel and confirm whether he will rely on the Code to defend his transfer.

The Grievance Settlement Board heard a grievance between the Ontario Public Service Employees Union and the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care.

Without providing reasons, as directed by the parties, the Vice-Chair dismissed the grievance.

The union filed a group grievance alleging the employer violated the collective agreement regarding the rate of pay for Stationary Engineers.

The parties had previously entered into a Letter of Agreement that explicitly constituted a complete and final settlement of all matters raised on this issue.

Finding no evidence that the employer failed to comply with the settlement terms, the arbitrator dismissed the grievance.

The grievor sought payment for scheduled shifts during the 2002 Ontario public service work stoppage.

The grievor elected not to cross a picket line, despite being invited to do so by the picket captain.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the grievor was not entitled to be paid in these circumstances.

The union filed a grievance alleging the employer failed to provide certain benefit coverage, relying on the clear language of the collective agreement.

The employer asserted the language was ambiguous and sought to rely on extrinsic evidence of negotiating history and past practice.

The parties disputed who should call such evidence first.

The arbitrator ruled that because the union relied solely on the clear language of the agreement to meet its onus, the employer, as the party asserting the ambiguity as a defence, must call its extrinsic evidence first.

The union would then be entitled to call reply evidence.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the union's grievance concerning the transfer of operations to a new agency was untimely.

The employer argued that the seven-day time limit under article 8.3 of the collective agreement applied.

The union contended that the standard thirty-day time limit under article 22.13.1 applied because the dispute concerned the application of the agreement to job offers, not the transfer agreement itself.

The arbitrator held that article 8.3 did not apply to disputes about the quality of job offers under articles 6.5 and 6.6.

The preliminary objection was dismissed as the grievance was filed within the thirty-day limit.

The parties referred grievances concerning the grievor's job specification and a job competition at the Central East Correctional Centre to mediation/arbitration.

The Vice-Chair ordered that the grievor be assigned to the Administrative Assistant OAG 8 position immediately, and appointed to the Personnel Clerk OAG 9 position should a vacancy occur within twelve months.

The grievor, a correctional officer, sought relocation costs after obtaining a lateral transfer to the Central East Correctional Centre following the closure of his previous institution.

He argued that he was discriminated against because other officers who moved to the same facility received relocation costs.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the grievor arrived at the new facility via a lateral transfer under Article 6.6.1 of the collective agreement, which does not provide for relocation costs, unlike the provisions under which his co-workers were transferred.

The grievors, correctional officers, filed grievances alleging they were not given proper credit for full seniority after returning to the Ontario Public Service from working at the privately operated Central North Correctional Centre (CNCC).

The Union argued there was no real break in service because the work, inmates, and training were similar and the facility was government-owned.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievances, finding that CNCC is not operated by the Ontario government and its employees are not members of the Ontario Public Service, meaning the grievors experienced a break in service.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of a casual correctional officer who was deemed an essential worker during a legal strike.

The grievor argued that because he was deemed essential during the strike, he should be converted to full-time status.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the criteria for conversion to classified status are set out in the collective agreement and that being deemed essential during a strike has no bearing on an employee's status.

Following a legal strike, the union filed several grievances alleging harassment and reprisal by management during the strike.

The parties had negotiated a Return to Work Protocol in which they agreed that there would be no reprisals, discrimination, or retaliation for any act arising out of participation in the strike.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievances, finding that given the parties' agreement to forgive indiscretions and move forward without reprisal, it was neither helpful nor appropriate to hear the individual grievances.

The Union filed a grievance on behalf of a Fire Services Investigator 1, an emergency worker, alleging the Employer violated the Essential Services Agreement during a legal strike by directing staff to perform non-essential tasks.

The grievor sought reimbursement for lost wages and pension contributions for the strike period.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding it lacked jurisdiction to retroactively alter the grievor's agreed-upon emergency designation and award pay for the strike period, regardless of whether the allegations were proven.

The Union filed a grievance on behalf of an essential worker who was denied three days of Special and Compassionate Leave during a legal strike.

The grievor had requested the leave to receive previously stored belongings after moving residences.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the granting of such leave is at the Employer's discretion under the collective agreement, and it was not surprising or unreasonable for the Employer to deny the request given the reduced staffing levels during the work stoppage.

The Union filed grievances on behalf of two Human Resource Clerks alleging their positions should have been declared essential during a legal strike and that management personnel performed their work during and after the strike.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the first grievance as inarbitrable, noting that essential service designations were agreed upon prior to the strike and retroactive designation would be inappropriate.

The second grievance was also dismissed because the Union failed to provide evidence contradicting the Employer's assertion that the work performed by management was not work normally performed by the grievors.

During a legal strike, the parties agreed to a Master Agreement for Essential Services that allowed the employer to schedule split shifts if only one person was available.

Two correctional officers grieved that they were entitled to travel time and mileage when required to work split shifts.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievances, finding that clear language would be required to establish such an entitlement, and no such provision existed.

Following a legal strike, the parties negotiated a Return to Work Protocol and a Memorandum of Settlement regarding strike-related discipline grievances.

The Memorandum provided that no discipline would be taken for acts during the strike, references to discipline would be removed, and outstanding grievances not resolved would be referred to a Vice-Chair for final determination.

The Vice-Chair found that the grievances listed in Appendix A were deemed withdrawn in accordance with the settlement.

During a legal strike, essential and emergency workers at a correctional complex worked overtime and were paid for those hours.

The union filed a group grievance alleging the employer violated the collective agreement by refusing to allow the employees to bank their overtime hours as compensating time off, which was the normal past practice.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the collective agreement requires mutual agreement to take overtime as compensating leave.

The Board held that the employer was within its rights to withhold agreement during a strike, as the essential services agreement explicitly stated it was not a 'business as usual' scenario.

The Union filed a grievance on behalf of two Correctional Officers claiming entitlement to travel time and mileage incurred when they were required to work split shifts during a legal strike.

The parties had negotiated a Master Agreement for Essential Services that allowed management to schedule split shifts if only one person was available.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that while the Employer could schedule split shifts under the Master Agreement, there was no clear language in the agreement entitling employees to travel time and mileage for such shifts.

The Union filed a strike-related grievance alleging the Employer violated the Essential Services Agreement by failing to place the grievor on the Emergency List due to accommodation issues.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that a prior order had already directed the Employer to place the grievor on the list, and the Employer had complied with that order.

The union filed grievances on behalf of several employees who were in accommodated or modified work positions prior to a legal strike.

The employees alleged that the employer violated the collective agreement by failing to include them in the draw for essential and emergency workers.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievances, finding that the accommodated positions were agreed to be non-essential, and the employer was under no obligation to schedule the employees in different assignments without updated medical information confirming their ability to perform essential duties.