OGSB 2004

A group grievance was filed by correctional officers from the Burtch Correctional Centre alleging that the employer violated the collective agreement and the MERC agreement by sending inmates to institutions other than the Central North Correctional Centre (CNCC).

The union sought $10,000 per grievor.

The arbitrator found that all inmates from Burtch were initially transferred to CNCC as required, and any subsequent transfer of inmates from CNCC did not violate the collective agreement, the MERC agreement, or a prior arbitration order.

The grievance was denied.

The union filed a grievance concerning the appropriate work location of an unclassified Correctional Officer for the purposes of rollover eligibility during a period of institutional restructuring.

The grievor had accepted a temporary opportunity at the Toronto Jail and was receiving an expense stipend, but her unclassified contract on the eligibility date was with the Toronto Jail.

The Grievance Settlement Board determined that the receipt of a travel stipend was irrelevant and that her work location for the purpose of determining her employment location under the transition agreement was the Toronto Jail.

The union filed a grievance regarding the implementation of a Memorandum of Settlement (MERC 1) concerning the restructuring of correctional facilities.

The MERC agreement provided for the rollover of three unclassified Correctional Officers at the Sudbury Jail into classified positions.

Prior to this, the local parties had signed an agreement resolving individual grievances for two officers, appointing them to classified positions.

The employer argued these two positions should be counted towards the three MERC rollovers.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that the local grievance settlements were separate from the MERC agreement, and therefore three positions must be rolled over in addition to the two positions granted under the local agreement.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the employer to provide the union with the grievor's telephone number and e-mail address following a conference call.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued directions regarding a policy grievance concerning document disclosure and bargaining unit exclusions.

The employer was ordered to comply with a previous production order for specific positions at the Ministry of Health, regardless of contentions that the positions involved work done by OPSEU members or ceased to exist.

The employer was also directed to state its position on whether disputed positions involved AMAPCEO work and whether the individuals were employees or excluded from the bargaining unit.

The union sought a further order for the production of documents relating to individuals engaged by the Ministry of Health who are not formally classified as public servants, to determine if they belong in the bargaining unit.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the employer to produce contracts, secondment agreements, or job specifications for the disputed individuals by April 26, 2004, unless the employer concedes they are members of the bargaining unit.

The union applied for further disclosure from the employer relating to persons working in information technology or the Shared Services Bureau.

The Grievance Settlement Board directed the employer to provide its position on whether each claimed person is performing union-type work, the facts relied upon to justify its position, and the status of persons whose contracts have expired.

The grievor filed a grievance alleging that management unfairly disciplined him by placing an inaccurate performance appraisal on his file.

The employer brought a motion arguing that the performance appraisal did not constitute discipline and therefore the Board lacked jurisdiction.

The union did not oppose the motion.

The Board held that an appraisal is only disciplinary if used to build a record against the employee, and since the employer took the position that it was not disciplinary, it could not be used as such in the future.

The grievance was dismissed as inarbitrable.

In a grievance arbitration regarding statutory holiday pay for essential workers during a strike, the union sought interest on the monies owed.

The employer argued the union was estopped from claiming interest because it was only raised on the last day of the hearing.

The arbitrator rejected the estoppel argument, finding no detrimental reliance by the employer.

The employer was directed to pay interest on monies owing under the expired collective agreement and on the retroactive wage increase, with the latter accruing from the date the retroactive payments were reasonably completed.

The Grievance Settlement Board determined the entitlement of correctional workers to holiday pay for Good Friday and Easter Monday during the 2002 strike.

The employer argued that correctional workers on the emergency part of their rotation should be treated as emergency employees, only covered by the collective agreement when called to work.

The union argued they were essential workers covered throughout the strike.

The Vice-Chair ruled that because correctional workers were designated to provide essential services, they were covered by the collective agreement for the entire duration of the work stoppage, provided they performed any work during it, and are therefore entitled to holiday pay.

The union grieved the employer's refusal to pay holiday pay for Good Friday and Easter Monday to essential and emergency workers during a 2002 strike.

In a previous decision, the arbitrator ruled that entitlement depended on whether there was a 'reasonable nexus' between the work performed and the benefit claimed.

After receiving written submissions, the arbitrator concluded that a sufficient nexus existed.

Emergency workers were covered by the collective agreement if the holiday fell between the assignment and completion of work, and essential workers had scheduled hours throughout the strike.

The arbitrator ordered that any employee covered by the collective agreement on the holidays in question is entitled to holiday pay.

The parties attended a hearing before the Grievance Settlement Board and made a joint submission asserting that there was no dispute between them.

Based on this submission, the Vice-Chair found that the Board lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the grievances.

The grievor alleged she should have been assigned overtime work as a fire operations clerk during the 2002 work stoppage.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance because the evidence indicated no such overtime work was performed by anyone at the location on the dates in question.

The Grievance Settlement Board heard a strike-related grievance concerning the balancing of hours for Correctional Officers working a compressed workweek.

Following a previous decision ordering the local Employee Relations Committee (ERC) to meet and discuss the issue, the local union ERC members refused to make a decision, arguing they lacked legal authority and faced a conflict of interest.

The Vice-Chair held that the local union must canvass the wishes of its membership and present a position to the Employer, as intended by the parties' Memorandum of Agreement.

The local ERC was ordered to meet within sixty days to fulfill this obligation.

Following a legal strike in 2002, the parties negotiated a Return to Work Protocol and a Dispute Resolution Protocol to address thousands of strike-related grievances.

The grievor, a Correctional Officer, filed a grievance regarding the balancing of hours after returning to a compressed work week schedule.

The parties had previously entered into a Memorandum of Settlement requiring local Union and management to meet at the Employee Relations Committee (ERC) to discuss balancing hours.

As the parties could not confirm whether such a meeting had occurred at the grievor's institution, the Vice-Chair ordered the local Union and management to hold an ERC meeting within 60 days to discuss the issue, with the resulting decision to apply to all employees within the facility.

More than 100 tax auditors grieved the employer's refusal to reimburse their professional membership dues (CGA, CA, CMA).

The union argued that under a government-wide policy, the employer was required to reimburse the dues because the memberships were beneficial to the ministry, and that the refusal was an unreasonable exercise of management rights.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that the grievances were not arbitrable because the collective agreement was silent on the reimbursement of professional dues, and the employer's policy did not constitute an undertaking that created enforceable rights under the agreement.

In the alternative, the Board found that the union failed to prove that the employer's decision not to reimburse the dues was unreasonable, as there was insufficient evidence that maintaining the memberships provided a benefit to the ministry that outweighed the cost of reimbursement.

The grievances were dismissed.

The grievor claimed call-back pay after receiving a phone call from his supervisor on the evening a work stoppage ended, instructing him where to pick up his Ministry vehicle the next morning.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding no entitlement to call-back pay in the circumstances.

The union filed individual and group grievances alleging the employer failed to ensure the security of documents containing confidential employee information.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the Grievance Settlement Board lacked jurisdiction to hear the grievances.

The Vice-Chair ruled on a non-precedential basis, without reasons, that the matters did not lie within the board's jurisdiction and dismissed the grievances.

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

The parties agreed to a preliminary procedure to determine three issues based on assumed facts.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that the union's pleadings disclosed a prima facie case of sexual harassment.

The Board further affirmed its jurisdiction to direct the employer to discipline or discharge a managerial employee in exceptional cases where absolutely necessary to effect a remedy.

However, the Board concluded that while the primary remedy of termination was not absolutely necessary in this case, the alternative remedies of removing the manager's supervisory powers or reassigning him might be appropriate.

A third party, Mr. Keating, was granted full participation rights in the grievance proceedings.

Having recently retained counsel, the third party requested an adjournment of several scheduled hearing dates.

Over the union's objection, the Vice-Chair granted the adjournment for the immediate hearing date and a subsequent date by agreement, but denied the request to adjourn dates scheduled for April, which had been set for some time.