OGSB 2004

The grievor, a former classified Correctional Officer, resigned his position pursuant to a Memorandum of Agreement signed in October 2001.

He subsequently worked in other capacities and eventually sought reinstatement as a classified employee with his original continuous service date, while keeping his severance package.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that the remedies requested were the very matters settled by the final and binding October 2001 Memorandum of Agreement, which could not be re-opened.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued a procedural order requiring the union and the employer to exchange written particulars of all allegations of fact and to produce all documents on which they intend to rely.

The order established a schedule for the exchange of particulars, productions, and reply particulars, and stipulated that failure to comply would preclude a party from introducing the undisclosed evidence without leave.

The grievor was suspended pending an investigation into criminal charges.

During her suspension, she submitted a request to retire to access her pension benefits due to financial hardship.

The Employer subsequently decided to terminate her employment and reject her retirement request, but failed to deliver the notice of termination to the grievor within the two-week notice period prescribed by section 19 of the Public Service Act.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that even if the Employer had the authority to reject the retirement request, it failed to do so in a timely manner.

The preliminary grievance was upheld, allowing the grievor to retire.

During a conference call, the employer requested an adjournment of a scheduled hearing, citing difficulties in receiving the notice of proceeding and the unavailability of their advisor.

The union opposed the request.

The Vice-Chair granted the adjournment and rescheduled the hearing.

During a hearing regarding a bargaining unit integrity grievance, the Union requested production of a contract between the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services and Collective Minds Consulting Incorporated.

The Grievance Settlement Board found the document arguably relevant and directed the Employer to provide a copy to the Union's counsel, with specific references to payment deleted.

The union filed a policy grievance claiming stand-by or on-call pay for employees designated to provide essential or emergency services during the 2002 Ontario Public Service strike.

The union argued that the designation letters and various Ontario Labour Relations Board decisions required these employees to maintain a state of readiness that satisfied the collective agreement criteria for stand-by or on-call pay.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that neither the designation letters nor the OLRB decisions required employees to maintain the specific level of availability corresponding to stand-by or on-call duty.

The grievance was dismissed.

The union filed a grievance regarding the interpretation of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dealing with the treatment of employees on Long Term Income Protection (LTIP) during a divestment to the Ontario Property Assessment Corporation (OPAC).

The employer argued that despite the absence of an explicit time restriction in the MOU, the parties had agreed to a one-year time limit for LTIP employees to return to work and commence employment with OPAC.

The Grievance Settlement Board found a latent ambiguity in the MOU and admitted extrinsic evidence, concluding that the mutual intention of the parties during negotiations was to impose a one-year time limit.

The Board ruled that the MOU ought to be read as containing a one-year time limit.

In a grievance concerning a return to work following a divestment, the employer sought to adduce extrinsic evidence to disclose a latent ambiguity or establish an estoppel regarding a Memorandum of Understanding.

The union objected.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that it would hear the proposed extrinsic evidence before determining whether it discloses a latent ambiguity or establishes an estoppel, noting that the evidence was expected to be relatively brief.

The union sought an interim relief order to place the grievor, a correctional officer who alleged harassment and discrimination based on sexual orientation, in an accommodated position outside a correctional facility pending the hearing of his grievance.

The employer opposed, arguing such an order was akin to a final remedy.

The Grievance Settlement Board held it had jurisdiction under the Labour Relations Act to order interim relief requiring positive action.

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 ordered the employer to make best efforts to accommodate the grievor within 30 days, failing which he would be placed back on the payroll.

The grievor, an unclassified records clerk, grieved the non-renewal of her contract, arguing she should have been converted to classified status because most of her hours were 'convertible' hours.

She also alleged discrimination for exercising her rights under the collective agreement.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, noting there was no substantiating evidence of discrimination and the union conceded that her total convertible hours were insufficient for conversion.

The union filed a grievance alleging the employer failed to implement a Memorandum of Settlement regarding the grievor's classification and pay rate following a restructuring.

The employer's local management had not implemented the agreement without providing a rationale.

The arbitrator ordered the employer to implement the original Memorandum of Settlement but declined to award additional compensation for the delay.

The Union filed a grievance alleging that overcrowding at the Hamilton-Wentworth Detention Centre violated the collective agreement.

At a preliminary hearing, the Union sought production of documents related to the facility's capacity and the Employer's efforts to reduce occupancy.

The Employer argued that the Union must first provide particulars of its allegations before disclosure is required.

The Grievance Settlement Board agreed with the Employer, holding that the Union must provide particulars regarding when, where, and how the alleged overcrowding violated the collective agreement before the Employer is obligated to produce the requested documents.

The Union filed a grievance alleging the Employer failed to properly implement pay for performance bonuses and merit pay increases.

The parties settled most issues but disagreed on whether employees on pregnancy or parental leave should receive unprorated pay for performance bonuses, and whether a clarity note regarding leaves of absence greater than three months was ambiguous.

The arbitrator determined she had the jurisdiction of a rights arbitrator, found no ambiguity in the clarity note, and held that the pay for performance bonus is a work-driven benefit that requires attendance.

Consequently, the Employer was entitled to prorate the bonus for employees absent on pregnancy or parental leave.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of a correctional officer alleging constructive dismissal, harassment, and a poisoned work environment.

The grievor claimed she was forced to resign under duress after being presented with a surplus package, alleging management misled her about potential vacancies.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the grievor was given notice of surplus in accordance with an agreed-upon memorandum governing facility restructuring.

The Board concluded the grievor was not singled out or treated differently from other surplussed employees, and dismissed the grievance.

The Grievance Settlement Board held an expedited arbitration to resolve numerous outstanding strike-related grievances filed by union members following a legal strike in 2002.

The parties had agreed to a dispute resolution protocol to process the grievances efficiently without oral evidence.

Given the volume of grievances and time constraints, the Vice-Chair issued a summary decision disposing of the remaining individual grievances without detailed reasons, upholding some with specific hours or days owing and dismissing others.

During a legal strike, correctional officers engaged in a work refusal.

Following an order to return to work, the employees reported but refused to enter the workplace after the employer barred previously suspended employees from entering.

The union filed a grievance seeking pay for the period the employees did not work.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that even if the employer had violated the return to work agreement, the employees were not entitled to issue an ultimatum and expect to be paid for hours they chose not to work.

The union filed grievances regarding the restructuring and closure of provincial correctional institutions.

The parties entered into Memoranda of Settlement to manage the transition, which appointed the Vice-Chair to resolve implementation disputes.

The union brought a dispute regarding rollovers at the Maplehurst Complex.

The Vice-Chair ordered the employer to fill 24 classified Correctional Officer positions at the complex in accordance with the parties' prior agreements.

The Union filed grievances regarding the restructuring and closure of provincial correctional institutions.

The parties entered into Memoranda of Settlement to resolve transition issues, which included a dispute resolution mechanism before the Grievance Settlement Board.

A dispute arose concerning rollovers at the Owen Sound Jail.

The arbitrator ordered the Employer to fill two classified Correctional Officer positions at the Owen Sound Jail in accordance with the process agreed to by the parties.

During a restructuring process, a correctional officer entered into a job trade with another employee.

After the paperwork was completed and the trade was concluded, the officer sought to revoke his agreement.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, holding that under the collective agreement and general labour relations principles, a finalized job trade cannot be revoked, as such job changes have significant impacts on other employees in the transition process.

The Union sought an order for the disclosure of workload analysis information at the Maplehurst Complex, which the Employer had agreed to provide by March 31, 2004, pursuant to a Memorandum of Agreement.

The Employer had not yet disclosed the information.

The Vice-Chair ordered the Employer to disclose the information no later than June 16, 2004, to allow the Union to prepare for further discussions regarding ongoing transition and restructuring disputes.