OGSB 2004

Several correctional officers filed grievances alleging that they were not treated fairly and equitably regarding continuous service date calculations.

The union and employer had previously agreed to a formula ensuring employees on pregnancy and parental leave would not be subject to adverse impact discrimination.

The grievors argued that because they were scheduled to work fewer hours as unclassified employees than the hours credited to employees on leave, the treatment was discriminatory.

The Grievance Settlement Board found the agreement was not discriminatory, as it ensured employees absent due to pregnancy and parental leave were not disadvantaged.

The grievances were denied.

The union filed multiple grievances arising from the August 2003 widespread power outage and subsequent provincial emergency.

The parties agreed to a consent award establishing that the period was not a strike, lockout, or public holiday, and that employees requested not to report to work would be paid.

The arbitrator resolved several individual disputes regarding vacation credits and sick leave, dismissing the majority of the grievances but upholding a few, ordering days to be taken as vacation or restored to sick leave banks.

The grievor filed a grievance alleging that a Drinking Water Inspector position was improperly filled without being posted.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance for lack of jurisdiction, noting that the Union and the Employer had agreed to fill the position by lateral transfer without posting it, meaning there was no dispute between the parties to the Collective Agreement.

The union filed grievances on behalf of several correctional officers alleging they were improperly denied severance pay and asserting they should receive the same terms as another employee who had settled an individual grievance.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievances, finding that the employer was not obligated to apply a memorandum of settlement concerning an individual grievance to other employees, regardless of whether the settlement was 'without prejudice'.

The grievor, a Rehabilitation Officer, was temporarily assigned to Maplehurst Correctional Complex instead of her planned move to Vanier Centre for Women due to operational requirements following facility closures.

She grieved that her posting was a de facto temporary assignment and sought travel time and mileage.

The Grievance Settlement Board upheld the grievance, finding the assignment was temporary and fell within the contemplation of Articles 13 and 14 of the collective agreement.

The union filed grievances on behalf of a correctional officer claiming entitlement to travel time and mileage costs for overtime shifts worked at a different facility.

The grievor had accepted offers for overtime work providing escort service out of the Maplehurst Complex.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievances, finding that the collective agreement provisions for travel time and mileage only applied when an employee was 'required' to use their own vehicle or when travel outside working hours was 'authorized by the ministry.' Since the overtime was voluntarily accepted and not required, the provisions did not apply.

The union filed two grievances on behalf of the grievor regarding a suspension and termination.

The hearing was adjourned twice previously due to the grievor's unavailability, with the second adjournment granted on the condition that the grievances would be withdrawn if the grievor failed to attend the next scheduled date.

The grievor failed to attend the rescheduled hearing despite the union's efforts to contact him.

Consequently, the union withdrew the grievances and the files were closed.

At a mediation, the grievor failed to appear despite having received notice and assuring his union representative that he would attend.

The employer moved to dismiss the grievance for lack of interest.

The Vice-Chair denied the motion at this stage, noting the grievor's stated intention to appear and the lack of an explanation for his absence.

The matter was set down for another hearing date, with leave for the employer to renew its motion if the grievor fails to appear again.

The grievor, an employee at the LCBO, received a four-week suspension without pay for making harassing comments to another employee.

The union grieved the suspension.

The Grievance Settlement Board reduced the suspension to five days and ordered the employer to reimburse the grievor for the remainder of the four-week period.

The Board also ordered the grievor to issue a written apology to the victim and required the grievor and his department to attend a human rights sensitivity training session.

The union requested the production of certain documents in advance of a scheduled hearing before the Grievance Settlement Board.

The Vice-Chair ordered the employer to produce copies of all notes made during the investigation that resulted in the grievor's discipline, including interviews with co-workers, conclusions made by the employer, names of interviewed employees, a copy of a note left on the complainant's locker, and any other undisclosed material in the investigation file.

The produced documents were ordered to be treated with confidentiality and used only for the proceeding.

The Grievance Settlement Board heard a grievance between the Ontario Public Service Employees Union and the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services.

Pursuant to the parties' protocol on mediation/arbitration, the decision was rendered without reasons.

The grievance was dismissed.

The Employer brought preliminary motions seeking to bifurcate the hearing into liability and remedy phases, and to delay the testimony of the Union's expert witness due to an incomplete exchange of particulars.

The Vice-Chair dismissed both requests, ruling that the Union was entitled to present its case as it saw fit, including calling medical evidence to establish the effect of the alleged breach of health and safety provisions.

The Vice-Chair also declined to interfere with the scheduling of the expert witness, noting that the parties had sufficient time to exchange particulars.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of the grievor.

Pursuant to the parties' protocol on mediation/arbitration, the Grievance Settlement Board rendered a decision without reasons.

The grievance was granted, and the employer was ordered to pay the grievor for 18 hours at the regular rate of pay.

The union filed a group grievance challenging the employer's discontinuance of a practice that permitted employees to carry over unused compensating and lieu time beyond March 31 of the following year.

The change in practice had previously been the subject of a policy grievance that was resolved with a transition period.

The union indicated it had no dispute with the employer in the context of the most recent group grievance.

Pursuant to the mediation/arbitration procedure under the collective agreement, the grievance was dismissed without reasons.

The grievor failed to appear at the scheduled arbitration hearing because he was at work.

The parties agreed to adjourn the matter rather than delay the start of the hearing.

The Grievance Settlement Board adjourned the hearing and set new dates, noting that the new dates would be peremptory on the grievor and that any future failure to appear could result in the dismissal of the grievance.

Following a public service strike, the parties agreed at the local level to balance hours worked during the strike.

The employer performed the calculations in a manner consistent with the collective agreement and the Memorandum of Settlement.

The grievors, who were found to owe hours as a result of the calculations, challenged the balancing.

The grievance was dismissed following a mediation/arbitration procedure.

The union requested an order for pre-hearing production pursuant to s. 48(12)(b) of the Labour Relations Act in relation to a policy grievance.

The employer opposed the request or alternatively sought to restrict it to data from the year 2000 onwards.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the employer to produce the requested information restricted to the year 2000 and after, with leave for the union to request prior years' information at the hearing.

The union brought a motion during an arbitration hearing requesting that the employer be ordered to produce records detailing the time spent by certain employees on the Vehicle Resolve Project.

The employer objected, arguing the request was untimely.

The arbitrator found that the records were relevant to the issues in dispute and that, given the hearing schedule, an order for production would not delay the proceedings.

The employer was ordered to produce the requested records.

The grievor applied for a Photocopy/Mail Clerk position and scored the highest in the interview.

However, the employer disqualified her, concluding she must have had advance knowledge of the interview questions and preferred answers because her responses were concise and closely matched the preferred answers.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the employer's conclusion was arbitrary and unreasonable, as the grievor had extensive experience in the role and had diligently studied publicly available materials, including the Canada Customs website, which the employer had used to create the questions.

The grievance was allowed, and the employer was ordered to place the grievor in the position and make her whole.

The union requested production of various documents from the employer, including an investigation file, internal emails regarding a manager's behaviour, and records relating to the grievors' absences and accommodation.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the production of the requested emails and accommodation records, but deferred the request for the conciliator's investigation file pending review of the retainer terms.

The employer requested production of the grievors' complete medical files, which the union undertook to obtain, review for relevance, and produce subject to potential redactions.