OGSB 2005

The union filed grievances arguing that employees working a compressed work week should be permitted to continue the past practice of banking all hours earned on a statutory holiday as lieu time.

The employer argued that the practice contradicted the collective agreement as interpreted in a prior decision, which limited the amount of lieu time that could be banked.

The parties agreed to a mediation/arbitration procedure and requested a decision without reasons.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievances, finding that the employees' rights were governed by the prior decision.

The employer brought a motion requesting that the Vice-Chair recuse herself from hearing a policy grievance due to a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The employer argued that the Vice-Chair's prior experience mediating and arbitrating disputes between the parties, and specifically her familiarity with the phrase 'removed from the table' in the context of joint committee meetings, created an apprehension of bias.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the motion, finding that in the context of labour arbitration, an adjudicator's prior knowledge and experience with the parties and their collective agreement does not, without more, give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The union filed a policy grievance regarding compensation and credits for its members during the August 2003 provincial power shortage.

Following a Consent Order issued in November 2003, the employer took the position that there was no violation of the Collective Agreement or the Consent Order with respect to numerous individual and group grievances.

The union agreed with this assessment.

Consequently, the Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievances.

Following the August 2003 widespread power outage and subsequent provincial emergency, numerous grievances were filed regarding employee compensation and leave credits.

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 Vice-Chair issued a decision dismissing several specific individual grievances from the Ministry of Finance and Ministry of Natural Resources without written reasons, as requested by the parties, and corrected a previous decision regarding one employee's vacation entitlement.

The union filed a grievance alleging the employer breached a prior settlement agreement by failing to interview the grievor for a Maintenance Mechanic position.

The union sought an order requiring the employer to interview the grievor, a process ultimately designed to secure the position for him.

The arbitrator held that the successful applicant for the position was entitled to third party notice of the hearing, as his rights under the collective agreement could be affected.

The union filed a grievance alleging the employer reneged on an oral agreement to grant the grievor a job interview, which was allegedly reached during a grievance meeting.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the grievance, arguing that the subsequent written Memorandum of Settlement did not contain this term and constituted the entire agreement.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the employer's motion, holding that while written settlements are generally sacrosanct, circumstances may exist where a written agreement does not reflect the complete mutual agreement of the parties.

The Board directed that evidence regarding the alleged oral agreement be heard.

The parties sought clarification of a previous decision regarding the disposition of a grievance.

The Grievance Settlement Board reviewed the applicable Memoranda of Settlement and Appendix 13 regarding the relocation of operations beyond a 40-kilometre radius.

The Board clarified that the home position of the grievor is the Ontario Correctional Institute.

The grievor was declared surplus and elected to retire under the Surplus Factor 80 program.

He subsequently grieved, claiming entitlement to a separation allowance under Article 20.3 of the collective agreement.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that Article 20.3 applies only to employees who resign, not those who retire.

Furthermore, electing the Factor 80 option requires an employee to waive all other surplus entitlements, including the separation allowance.

The employer requested particulars regarding multiple grievances filed by the union concerning the offering of summer seasonal work contracts in Algonquin Park for 2003.

The Grievance Settlement Board granted the request and ordered the union to provide full particulars, including the specific collective agreement provisions allegedly violated, the remedies sought, and details regarding past practice and seniority rights.

The parties entered into a protocol for the mediation/arbitration of a backlog of grievances but could not agree on a venue for an upcoming session.

The employer requested the session be held at the institution to save costs, while the union argued the worksite facilities were inadequate and lacked privacy.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that, absent mutual agreement, it was inappropriate to order the parties to meet at the worksite and directed them to convene at an available offsite location.

The Employer raised a preliminary objection that the 10 grievances filed by Tax Auditors were classification grievances, over which the Grievance Settlement Board lacks jurisdiction under s. 52.1 of CECBA.

The Union argued they were temporary assignment grievances.

The Vice-Chair reviewed the wording of the grievances and found that 9 of the 10 explicitly sought a classification change and were therefore outside the Board's jurisdiction.

One grievance, which only sought compensation for the time spent performing higher-level duties, was allowed to proceed as a temporary assignment grievance.

The grievor, a Customer Service Representative with physical restrictions due to workplace injuries, was placed on modified duties.

The Employer subsequently refused to schedule her for Sunday and premium shifts, claiming she could not perform the essential cash and stock functions required on those days.

Later, the Employer concluded it could no longer accommodate her and pursued a Labour Market Re-entry plan.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the Employer failed to accommodate the grievor to the point of undue hardship.

The Employer improperly relied on a blanket rule for Sunday scheduling and failed to adequately assess whether the grievor's tasks could be bundled or whether she could be placed in another position.

The Board ordered the Employer to reinstate the grievor and conduct a proper assessment of accommodation options.

The employer brought a preliminary motion arguing that the union's grievances regarding temporary assignments were in substance classification grievances, which fall outside the Grievance Settlement Board's jurisdiction.

The union alleged that the employer acted in bad faith and discriminatorily by granting temporary assignments to Water Group Leaders but not to Air Quality Analysts, partly as a reprisal for union activity.

The Board found that the union was not seeking a reclassification but rather challenging the exercise of management rights.

Because the union alleged that the employer's actions violated the collective agreement's non-discrimination clause, the Board held it had jurisdiction to hear the grievances on their merits.

The grievor, a correctional officer acting as an Operational Manager, was discharged after slapping a fellow correctional officer in the sally port of the Windsor Jail following an incident of horseplay where the fellow officer kicked a heavy metal door shut, nearly catching the grievor's hand.

The union grieved the discharge, conceding the conduct warranted discipline but arguing discharge was too severe.

The arbitrator applied the Reville factors and found that the grievor's long history of stellar performance, the isolated nature of the incident, his genuine remorse, and the expert psychological evidence supporting his successful reintegration warranted mitigating the penalty.

The grievance was allowed in part, and the discharge was substituted with a one-month suspension, conditional upon a formal apology.

The union filed grievances on behalf of a correctional officer alleging that the employer violated the collective agreement by failing to permanently assign him to the Central East Correctional Centre following the closure of the Whitby Jail.

The grievor claimed he was given a verbal undertaking that he would be assigned to the new facility.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievances, finding that the documentary evidence clearly informed the grievor that assignments were based on seniority and that he was not guaranteed a position.

The Board noted that the grievor failed to provide further evidence to substantiate the alleged verbal undertaking.

The parties previously reached a confidential settlement of two grievances.

The union brought the matter back before the arbitrator, alleging a dispute arising from the implementation of the settlement.

The arbitrator ordered that the grievor be placed on a paid leave of absence, without loss of benefits or seniority, until the employer complies with the memorandum of settlement.

The arbitrator also set out notice requirements for the employer to advise the grievor of his placement and retained jurisdiction over further disputes.

The grievor sought to have her continuous service date adjusted to include a period of nearly four years during which she worked for the Ministry through a temporary agency, Office Overload, prior to her appointment to the public service.

The Employer moved to dismiss the grievance, arguing that under established Board jurisprudence, service under a third-party contract cannot be included in the calculation of continuous service.

The Union conceded this point.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the grievance, confirming that the collective agreement and applicable jurisprudence do not permit third-party agency work to be counted as service in the public service.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of an employee, asserting that the employer violated the collective agreement by failing to credit the employee with continuous service from 1984 to 1989.

The employee had resigned in 1989 and returned to the Ontario Public Service in 1991.

The arbitrator found that under the collective agreement, seniority is based on continuous service, which is interrupted by a resignation.

Therefore, the employee was not entitled to have his prior service recognized for seniority purposes.

The grievance was dismissed.

The union filed grievances alleging that the employer breached the staffing levels in the Compressed Work Week agreement by failing to fill a fifth day shift position on Fridays, and that the hours should have been made available as overtime.

The employer argued that the agreement deals with hours of work and does not guarantee specific staffing levels.

The arbitrator found no evidence of a breach of the collective agreement and dismissed the grievances.

The Employer brought a preliminary motion to prohibit the Union from leading evidence related to events predating a June 2002 Memorandum of Settlement.

The Union sought to introduce this evidence to establish a pattern of discrimination against the grievor.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that the Union was precluded from presenting evidence about the facts and circumstances underlying the previously settled grievances, emphasizing the importance of preserving the sanctity of final settlements.

However, the Union was permitted to lead evidence about events occurring between the filing of the settled grievances and the current grievance, including evidence that the settlement itself was breached.