OGSB 2005

The union filed a grievance regarding a pay issue, seeking compensation and letters to the affected employees' banks.

The parties referred the matter to mediation/arbitration and requested a decision without reasons.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance.

The grievor, a District Engineer, was discharged for allegedly performing work on a project after being instructed not to do so.

The union argued the discharge was void due to a seven-month delay in its imposition.

The arbitrator dismissed the delay argument but found the grievor's conduct, while warranting some discipline for failing to communicate with management, did not amount to insubordination.

Considering the grievor's disciplinary record, the arbitrator concluded that discharge was too severe a penalty and substituted a 10-day suspension.

The employer's request to deny reinstatement due to an allegedly irreparably damaged employment relationship was rejected, and the grievor was reinstated with compensation.

The employer brought a motion to dismiss two grievances on the grounds that the union failed to comply with a board order to provide full particulars by a specified deadline.

The union provided some particulars two weeks after the final extended deadline.

The Vice-Chair declined to dismiss the grievances outright given the serious nature of the allegations, but ruled that the union would not be permitted further time to provide additional particulars.

The hearing was ordered to proceed based strictly on the allegations detailed in the late letters.

The parties met to commence hearings into two grievances.

At the outset, preliminary matters required procedural orders.

The Vice-Chair ordered that the two grievances be consolidated and heard together.

Furthermore, the Vice-Chair ordered a mutual exchange of full particulars regarding the alleged violations, responses, and essential facts to be proven at arbitration, with specific timelines for each party.

At a hearing before the Grievance Settlement Board, the Employer requested an order directing the Union to provide particulars of its allegations of discrimination, including specific details of the incidents and any medical documents it intended to rely on.

The Board found the requested particulars to be arguably relevant and ordered the Union to provide them to the Employer in advance of the next hearing day.

The grievor, George Burke, grieved that his seniority was not properly calculated because it did not include credit for the period from 1989 to 1991 when he did not work for the Ministry.

The union argued that his absence was due to marital and family status issues and that he should have been accommodated with a short-term leave instead of resigning.

The employer argued it relied on his clear letter of resignation and had no evidence of a request for accommodation.

The arbitrator found that the grievor's seniority was properly calculated in accordance with the collective agreement and dismissed the grievance.

The Union alleged that the Employer contravened a Memorandum of Settlement by failing to provide the grievor with a classified meat inspector position closer to his residence.

The grievor had secured a classified position in another region through a competitive process but preferred to work closer to home.

The Employer offered him an unclassified position in his preferred region, which he declined due to concerns about sufficient hours.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the Employer was not obligated to create a classified position in the preferred region and that its decision to use two unclassified positions was based on reasonable operational considerations.

The Board also found no bad faith or misleading conduct by the Employer regarding the potential for additional hours in the unclassified position.

The grievor, a Probation and Parole Officer, received a 20-day suspension for substandard case management following an audit.

The Union raised a preliminary objection, arguing the Employer breached the duty of fairness and deprived the grievor of union representation by failing to disclose the intended level of discipline during pre-disciplinary meetings.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the objection, finding no right under the collective agreement or the Labour Relations Act to union representation at pre-disciplinary meetings, and holding that the duty of fairness does not require an employer to discuss the intended level of discipline before imposing it.

The grievor, a Property Assessor, was off work on long-term disability when the employer divested its Property Assessment Division to a new entity.

The employer and union negotiated an agreement whereby disabled employees had a one-year window to recover and accept a job offer with the new entity.

The grievor did not recover within the one-year window, and when he sought to return to work later, his position no longer existed in the Ontario Public Service.

The union grieved that the one-year limit and the failure to accommodate him constituted discrimination on the basis of handicap.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the appropriate comparator group was employees whose jobs had been eliminated while on disability benefits, and that the one-year window was actually a beneficial grace period rather than discriminatory.

The Employer brought a preliminary motion to summarily dismiss a grievance claiming stand-by pay for employees designated under the Province of Ontario Nuclear Emergency Plan.

The Employer argued there was no prima facie breach of the collective agreement, the Union was estopped due to past practice, and the requested remedy required clear collective agreement language.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the preliminary motion, finding that a determination of whether the employees were effectively on stand-by, as well as the estoppel argument, required a full evidentiary hearing to assess the real requirements of the duties and the circumstances of the job.

The union filed grievances alleging that the grievor suffered harassment and discrimination based on sexual orientation, creating a poisoned work environment.

The employer brought a motion to exclude evidence of events that occurred prior to a 1998 Minutes of Settlement.

The union brought a motion seeking a compliance order, alleging the employer breached a previous interim relief order by failing to pay the grievor full-time wages during a work hardening program.

The Grievance Settlement Board granted the employer's motion, finding that admitting evidence of events settled by the 1998 Minutes of Settlement would be inequitable and prejudicial.

The Board dismissed the union's motion, finding the employer treated the grievor like any other employee returning to work on a gradual basis and did not breach the interim order.

The union filed a group grievance on behalf of correctional officers at the Metro West Detention Centre, claiming entitlement to travel time and mileage because another officer temporarily assigned there received such compensation.

The grievors also alleged they should have been moved to the new Vanier Centre for Women in accordance with overall seniority.

The arbitrator found no entitlement under the collective agreement for travel time and mileage for the grievors' work at Metro West.

The arbitrator also held that the employer had the right to determine reporting dates based on operational requirements and seniority.

The grievance was denied.

The union filed health and safety grievances seeking monetary compensation for a workplace injury.

The employer brought a preliminary motion arguing that the Grievance Settlement Board lacked jurisdiction to award monetary compensation because the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act (WSIA) grants exclusive jurisdiction over such compensation to the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board.

The Board dismissed the employer's motion, finding that while the predecessor legislation extinguished 'all rights and rights of action', section 26(2) of the current WSIA only extinguishes 'rights of action'.

Since a grievance is not an action, the Board retained its remedial jurisdiction to award compensation for a violation of the collective agreement.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued a final decision resolving the remaining outstanding strike-related grievances arising from the 2002 legal strike by OPSEU members.

The parties had previously agreed to an expedited dispute resolution protocol to handle approximately 4500 grievances.

As the major issues had already been litigated and decided, the parties agreed that the remaining matters would be decided without reasons.

The Vice-Chair provided a list of the remaining grievances and their respective dispositions, which included dismissals, monetary awards, and sick day credits.

The Grievance Settlement Board heard preliminary issues regarding numerous grievances filed by employees of the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services following a reorganization announcement.

The grievances sought to reconsider previous Board decisions, nullify MERC agreements, or claimed violations that had not yet occurred.

The Vice-Chair directed the Union to review the recently filed grievances and notify the Board of its intention to proceed, noting that the Board does not reconsider its decisions and that the MERC agreements are binding.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued a clarification of a previous award dated January 27, 2005, regarding the home position of employees surplussed at the Rideau Correctional and Treatment Centre and assigned to St. Lawrence Valley.

The Vice-Chair corrected a transcription error in the previous decision where a letter sent to Brockville Jail employees was incorrectly cited instead of the letter sent to Rideau employees.

The clarification sets out the correct letter and confirms that the home position for these employees is the St. Lawrence Valley Correctional and Treatment Centre.

The Grievance Settlement Board was asked to determine the home position of certain correctional employees affected by the restructuring and decommissioning of provincial institutions.

The Vice-Chair ruled that employees who worked at the Rideau Correctional and Treatment Centre and either accepted a lateral transfer or were surplussed and assigned to the St. Lawrence Valley Correctional and Treatment Centre have St. Lawrence Valley as their home position, even if temporarily assigned elsewhere.

In a grievance arbitration concerning a casual employee's entitlement to a paid rest period and an allegedly retaliatory transfer, the Union sought to introduce similar fact evidence of prior intimidation by a manager, as well as extrinsic evidence of past practice to interpret the collective agreement and establish estoppel.

The Grievance Settlement Board ruled that the similar fact evidence was inadmissible, as the prior incidents lacked striking similarity to the current grievance and admitting them would cause undue prejudice and delay.

However, the Board permitted the Union to introduce extrinsic evidence regarding past practice, reserving judgment on whether it disclosed a latent or patent ambiguity in the collective agreement or established an estoppel against the Employer.

The union filed a grievance alleging that the employer breached the collective agreement by removing the grievor from a safe area, placing him in an area of extreme risk, and engaging in intentional intimidation.

The matter proceeded under an Expedited Mediation-Arbitration Protocol.

The union was unable to contact the grievor to obtain further particulars or information.

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

The grievor, a Nurse 2, filed a grievance alleging that the employer's practice of hiring new Nurse 2's at a higher rate of pay than her current rate was unfair and breached the collective agreement.

The matter proceeded via an Expedited Mediation-Arbitration Protocol.

The employer argued that no provision in the collective agreement restricted its right to give credit for past experience to new employees at the point of hiring.

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