OGSB 2004

The union filed three grievances on behalf of the grievor seeking remedies amounting to accommodation under the Human Rights Code.

Based on joint submissions, the Grievance Settlement Board ordered that the grievor be placed in a permanent full-time Warehouse Worker 3 position.

As an accommodation, the employer was ordered not to schedule the grievor on the afternoon shift during his probationary period, and the grievor was permitted to switch scheduled afternoon shifts with other workers for two years.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of a correctional officer alleging he was improperly denied travel time and mileage following the restructuring and closure of provincial correctional institutions.

The parties agreed the grievor was entitled to travel time and mileage but disputed the duration.

The arbitrator determined the grievor was entitled to travel time and mileage commencing thirty days prior to the filing of his grievance up to and including May 1, 2003.

The grievor, a Housekeeper 2, was surplussed due to the closure of the Guelph Correctional Centre.

He bumped into a Housekeeper 1 position at another facility and grieved that he should have been placed in a Housekeeper 2 position at Maplehurst.

He also grieved that he should have been allowed to remain at his original facility until all operations were moved.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding no Housekeeper 2 positions were available at the time he was surplussed, and the Employer complied with the Memorandum of Agreement regarding the timing of his relocation.

The union filed grievances alleging that the employer violated the collective agreement by denying the grievors the opportunity to perform overtime work at the Vanier Centre for Women in Brampton while they were working at the Milton location.

The parties referred the grievances to mediation/arbitration.

The arbitrator found that the union failed to demonstrate a violation of the collective agreement and dismissed the grievances.

In a grievance alleging the Employer contravened the management rights provision by not providing certain training to a pilot, the Employer requested particulars.

The Grievance Settlement Board directed the Union to provide the requested particulars to the Employer.

The grievor previously signed Minutes of Settlement waiving his employment rights under Article 20 of the collective agreement in exchange for a surplus package.

Years later, after returning from long-term disability, the Employer mistakenly sent him a letter offering him bumping rights and a potential job relocation.

The Employer quickly rescinded the offer upon realizing the error.

The Union argued the Employer was estopped from relying on the prior settlement due to the mistaken offer.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding the mistaken letter was not intended to alter the legal relationship and the grievor had not relied on it to his detriment.

The union filed a grievance alleging the employer violated the collective agreement by denying the grievor an overtime assignment.

The employer argued the grievor was not entitled to the assignment and that the grievance was not arbitrable due to missed time limits.

Proceeding under the mediation/arbitration procedure, the Vice-Chair issued a decision without reasons, finding that the employer did not violate the overtime provisions.

The grievance was dismissed.

The Employer raised a preliminary objection that the Union's grievance concerning the transfer of the Lakehead Psychiatric Hospital to St. Joseph's Care Group was untimely.

The Union alleged that the transfer agreement did not comply with the collective agreement regarding terms and conditions of employment and financial incentives.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the time for filing the grievance began to run when the Union received the transfer agreement in February 2000, not when it was advised in April 2003 that the financial incentive had not been paid.

The grievance was dismissed as untimely.

The union filed grievances on behalf of correctional officers following the closure of the Whitby Jail, alleging the employer misrepresented relocation options by initially listing the Toronto Jail as being within a 40-kilometre radius.

After an independent GPS calculation determined the distance was 40.065 kilometres, the employer removed the Toronto Jail from the list of options.

The grievors sought travel time and mileage costs, claiming they might have made different relocation choices had they known the true distance.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievances, finding no evidence of bad faith by the employer and noting that the employer had simply complied with the union's request to recalculate the distance and remove the Toronto Jail from the list.

The Union grieved that five System Services Specialists (Schedule 6 employees) were entitled to call-back pay under the collective agreement when called back to work following their afternoon rotation.

The Employer argued that Schedule 6 employees are not entitled to premium overtime pay and that the grievors do not work a 'scheduled shift' due to the flexible and unpredictable nature of their hours.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that while Schedule 6 status does not automatically preclude call-back pay, the grievors' work lacked a specified time of work starting and ending on set times on a regular basis, meaning they did not have a 'next scheduled shift' within the meaning of the call-back provision.

The grievor, a classified 24-hour regular part-time employee, filed a grievance alleging she should have been converted to a full-time classified employee because she had consistently worked full-time hours since June 1, 2002.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that there was nothing in the collective agreement that would allow for the grievor's conversion to full-time classified status, noting she had not competed for and won a temporary assignment as a full-time employee.

The grievance was denied.

The grievor, a Correctional Officer, filed a grievance alleging the Employer violated the collective agreement by failing to grant his request for a lateral transfer on compassionate grounds.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that there is no automatic right to a lateral transfer under the collective agreement, and no such thing as a transfer based on compassionate grounds.

Furthermore, the grievor failed to renew his transfer request after one year as required.

The grievance was dismissed.

The union brought a motion to consolidate two grievances filed by a correctional officer.

The first grievance alleged workplace harassment and discrimination, while the second alleged a failure to accommodate her return to work following an extended sick leave.

The employer opposed consolidation, arguing the issues were separate and distinct.

The Grievance Settlement Board granted the motion, finding that the grievances shared common questions of law and fact, and that requiring the union to present the same medical evidence in two separate hearings would be inefficient.

The grievor failed to attend a scheduled hearing date and sent a letter requesting an adjournment to a later scheduled date, alleging lack of proper notice and delayed documentation from union counsel.

The union supported the adjournment, while the employer opposed it.

The Vice-Chair granted the adjournment, noting that since the grievor had notice of and intended to attend the requested date, there was no need to address the notice issue in the proceeding.

Three correctional officers filed grievances alleging that the Employer violated the collective agreement by failing to provide the exact date of their headquarters relocation when they were notified of their assignment to a new facility following institutional closures.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievances, finding that a subsequent Ministry Employment Relations Committee (MERC) agreement explicitly superseded the previous requirement and allowed the Employer to determine the effective date of relocation at a later time.

The Board noted that the grievors were given proper notice in accordance with the parties' agreement.

The grievor, a Correctional Officer, filed a grievance alleging he should have been given a temporary plumber position at Sprucedale Youth Centre following the closure of Burtch Correctional Centre.

The grievor had previously held a temporary plumber position at Burtch for a year before returning to his home position as a Correctional Officer and transferring to Elgin Middlesex Detention Centre.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding nothing in the collective agreement or the transition memoranda of settlement that entitled the grievor to a temporary plumber position.

The union filed a group grievance on behalf of correctional officers alleging that the Cornwall Jail was closed prematurely while the Pembroke Jail remained open, creating temporary assignments at the Ottawa Carleton Detention Centre.

The grievors sought mileage and travel expenditures.

The arbitrator found that the grievors could not deem their positions at OCDC as temporary and that there was no violation of the MERC 3 agreement, as 'surplus date' and 'closure date' have different meanings.

The grievance was denied.

The union filed a group grievance alleging that the employer violated articles 6 and 38 of the collective agreement regarding the staffing complement utilized on July 2, 2001.

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

The arbitrator found no violation of the collective agreement and dismissed the grievance.

In a grievance alleging that scheduling employees to work alone on Friday evenings violates the collective agreement's health and safety provisions, the parties raised preliminary motions.

The arbitrator granted the union's request to take a view of the workplace, finding it would assist in assessing the physical setting.

The union's request for production of documents relating to other store locations was partially granted, limited to documents concerning other 'D' stores and general surveys.

The employer's request for particulars was granted, requiring the union to provide details of any specific incidents it intends to rely on.

The union filed grievances alleging the employer failed to comply with a memorandum of settlement provision requiring a net payment of $500 or $300 to employees.

The employer had grossed up the amounts by 10% and remitted the 10% as withholding tax, which was later determined to be an unlawful tax approach.

The arbitrator found the language clear and unambiguous, holding that the employer was responsible for the lawful tax consequences of the net payment and that the proper tax approach was the one used for bonus payments.