OGSB 2005

In the context of discharge and other grievances filed by the grievor, the Union sought disclosure of documentation recording medication dispensed to a particular inmate.

The Grievance Settlement Board found the documents arguably relevant and directed the Employer to provide them to Union counsel, subject to the condition that they be used only for purposes related to the hearing.

The union grieved the employer's correction of an error in an employee's seniority date, which resulted in the grievor losing shift selection preference.

The union argued that a prior memorandum of agreement barred adjustments to seniority dates after a specific deadline, and alternatively relied on the doctrine of estoppel.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that the language of the current collective agreement expressly permitted the correction of errors by stating an employee's seniority date is the greater of the specified formula or the previous agreement.

The estoppel argument also failed because the union had agreed to the current wording.

The Union sought interim relief to prevent the Employer from terminating a temporary transfer agreement that allowed the grievor to work at the Milton courthouse instead of her home position at the Dufferin/Finch courthouse.

The grievor alleged the termination was in retaliation for her union activities and grievances.

The Employer argued the termination was due to operational needs and the expiration of the agreement.

The Grievance Settlement Board found it had jurisdiction and that there was an arguable case on the merits.

However, balancing the harm, the Board concluded that the potential harm to the Employer, including operational concerns and ongoing workplace conflict due to harassment allegations, outweighed the inconvenience to the grievor of commuting to the Dufferin/Finch location.

The motion for interim relief was denied.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of part-time employees who were denied holiday pay when Christmas, Boxing Day, and New Year's Day fell on weekends and were observed on the following Mondays and Tuesdays.

The employer argued that the collective agreement did not provide for moving holidays for part-time employees.

The arbitrator found no conflict between the collective agreement and Regulation 977 of the Public Service Act, which requires holidays falling on a weekend to be moved to the next regular workday.

The grievance was allowed, and the employer was ordered to compensate the grievors for the lost holiday pay.

The union filed a grievance alleging the employer violated the collective agreement by failing to pay the grievor eight hours of overtime.

The grievor, an unclassified correctional officer, argued the employer should have split a 12-hour shift to maximize her overtime opportunities after she had already worked 32 hours that week.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding the employer's obligation under the protocol was only to offer the opportunity to work 40 hours per week, which it did, and not to maximize overtime opportunities.

The grievor, a long-service employee subject to a last chance agreement following a previous discharge for honesty-related misconduct, was discharged for allegedly stealing $20.00 from a co-worker's cash deposit.

The co-worker testified as an eyewitness to the theft, and a subsequent count confirmed the $20.00 shortage.

The arbitrator found the eyewitness testimony credible and in harmony with the preponderance of probabilities, while rejecting the grievor's explanations as inconsistent and uncorroborated.

The employer met its burden of proving the theft by clear, cogent, and compelling evidence.

The grievance was dismissed and the discharge upheld.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of a correctional officer whose finalized job trade agreement was not implemented by the employer.

The parties had previously agreed to a transition process for restructuring, which included a job trading program.

The grievor and another employee had completed all necessary paperwork and received confirmation of their job trade.

However, when the grievor reported to his new location, he was sent back.

The arbitrator held that once a job trade agreement is finalized, it is binding on all parties and cannot be rescinded.

The grievance was allowed, and the employer was ordered to implement the trade and pay compensation.

The union filed a policy grievance alleging that the employer was obligated under the collective agreement to pay the newly introduced Ontario Health Premium on behalf of bargaining unit members.

The union argued that the collective agreement's promise to provide OHIP coverage 'at no premium cost' required the employer to cover the new levy.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that while the Ontario Health Premium is materially similar to the former OHIP premium, the specific language of the collective agreement, which was amended following the introduction of the Employer Health Tax Act, limited the employer's payment obligation to the Employer Health Tax.

The union grieved the termination of the grievor's employment.

The parties agreed to proceed under the mediation/arbitration procedure set out in the collective agreement and requested an order without written reasons.

The arbitrator ordered the grievor reinstated effective the date of termination, after which the parties reached an agreement on all outstanding matters.

The union sought production of documents and particulars related to the grievor's termination.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the employer to provide all documents relied upon in terminating the grievor's employment, including written complaints, interview notes, and the investigator's report.

The employer was also ordered to provide written particulars of the facts relied upon to establish just cause for dismissal within thirty days.

The Union filed a policy grievance arguing that under the collective agreement and the Employment Standards Act, 2000, an employee is entitled to split their parental leave into multiple periods, provided the total does not exceed the maximum statutory entitlement.

The Employer maintained that parental leave must be taken in one continuous period and is exhausted once the employee returns to work.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the statutory language and scheme of the ESA contemplate a single, continuous parental leave of absence.

Consequently, an employee who returns to work before exhausting their full entitlement cannot take a second period of parental leave with top-up benefits.

The grievor, a correctional officer, elected to take early retirement under Factor 80.

She later requested to rescind her retirement due to unforeseen personal reasons, which the employer denied.

Over two years later, she filed a grievance alleging bias and prejudice regarding the denial.

The employer raised a preliminary objection regarding timeliness.

The Grievance Settlement Board upheld the preliminary objection, finding no reasonable grounds for the delay, and dismissed the grievance.

The grievor filed grievances challenging various suspensions, his discharge, and alleged discrimination.

The Union sought an order for particulars regarding two inmate witnesses the Employer intended to rely on.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the Employer to provide the facts upon which it intended to rely and to disclose all materials, including written, electronic, and handwritten notes, regarding the two inmates for any incarcerations in any Ministry institution.

The union grieved the employer's decision not to award the full-time position of Quality Control Logistics Representative to the grievor, who was the more senior applicant.

The collective agreement contained a 'sufficient ability' clause requiring the promotion of the senior employee provided they were qualified.

The employer utilized a selection process comprising an interview, written tests, and a reference check, ultimately determining the grievor was not qualified.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding the selection process was comprehensive, fair, and reasonably concluded that the grievor lacked the requisite qualifications for the position.

The union filed a policy grievance alleging the employer failed to create the required number of permanent full-time positions under a Letter of Understanding.

The central issue was whether hours worked by casual employees on night shifts should be included in the calculation of casual hours worked to determine if a full-time position exists.

The employer argued that night shift assignments were temporary under the collective agreement and thus excluded from the calculation.

The arbitrator found that the collective agreement limited night shift assignments to six months, making them temporary by definition.

Therefore, the employer's practice of excluding these hours was consistent with the collective agreement, and the grievance was dismissed.

The grievor, a maintenance electrician, was called back to work twice on a statutory holiday.

The employer paid him holiday pay for the first call-back and standard call-back pay for the second.

The union grieved, arguing he was entitled to holiday pay for both call-backs.

The Grievance Settlement Board allowed the grievance, finding that the grievor suffered the double inconvenience of being called back twice on a holiday, triggering the superior holiday pay benefit for both instances without constituting pyramiding.

The employer brought a motion requesting that the Grievance Settlement Board defer a grievance regarding the posting of a Coordinator of Pharmacy Services position to the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB).

The union had filed a grievance claiming the work belonged to its bargaining unit, while the employer asserted the position fell within a different union's bargaining unit and filed a jurisdictional dispute with the OLRB.

The Board granted the employer's motion to defer, finding that the OLRB was the appropriate forum to resolve a multi-party jurisdictional dispute and avoid the risk of conflicting arbitration decisions under different collective agreements.

The Employer brought a motion to compel the Union to provide additional particulars regarding a grievance alleging a failure to accommodate the grievor's disabilities under the Ontario Human Rights Code, prior to a scheduled hearing for interim relief.

The Vice-Chair reviewed the grievance, the Union's letter of particulars, and disclosed documents, concluding that they sufficiently outlined the 'who, what, where, when and how' of the allegations.

The Employer's concerns were deemed to be potential defences rather than a lack of basic particulars.

The motion for additional particulars was denied.

The union filed a grievance alleging that the employer violated the collective agreement by failing to offer overtime to the grievors.

The employer maintained that the overtime was a continuation of the day shift and was properly offered to day shift employees.

The parties requested a without precedent decision with no reasons.

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

The union filed several grievances which proceeded to mediation-arbitration.

Following submissions from the parties, the Vice-Chair dismissed the grievances, noting that the decision has no precedential value pursuant to Article 22.16.7 of the collective agreement.