OGSB 2005

The union grieved the awarding of six Nurse 2 positions and sought production of the competition file.

The employer agreed to provide the file but redacted the names of the candidates, asserting a privacy interest.

The arbitrator ordered the employer to produce the complete file, finding no expectation of privacy in an open competitive process that is subject to challenge through the grievance procedure, and noting the union's obligation to advise successful applicants whose interests might be affected.

The grievor, a payment specialist at the WSIB, was terminated under Article 13.05 of the collective agreement for being absent without a justifiable reason for more than ten consecutive working days.

The grievor had requested an extension of her leave due to work-related stress, but failed to provide sufficient medical evidence.

The employer sent letters to her home address requiring her to return to work or provide medical evidence, but she was out of the country and did not receive them.

The arbitrator found that the grievor had a justifiable reason for her absence because she reasonably expected the employer to contact her by cell phone regarding her leave request.

The termination was set aside, and a one-month unpaid suspension was substituted for her failure to properly communicate and return to work.

The union filed approximately thirty grievances on behalf of twelve employees alleging violations of Article 11 of the collective agreement, which applies to employees who do not attend at or work from any permanent Ministry facility.

The grievors argued that because the workplace was in a state of flux due to restructuring, there were no permanent assignments.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievances, finding that at the time the grievances were filed, each of the grievors was permanently assigned to a worksite.

The union filed grievances on behalf of correctional officers alleging that temporary assignments lasting longer than six months should have been posted as vacancies under the collective agreement.

The arbitrator denied the grievances, finding that the parties' negotiated MERC Memorandum of Agreement, which focused on job security and avoiding lay-offs during the restructuring and decommissioning of institutions, prevailed over the general posting provisions.

The Employer sought an adjournment of a scheduled grievance hearing date because its advisor was summonsed to attend a criminal proceeding on that day.

The Union opposed the adjournment.

Following a conference call, the Grievance Settlement Board granted the Employer's request to adjourn the hearing date and scheduled an additional hearing day.

The grievor, a bus driver with 16 years of service, was terminated after writing and posting a threatening letter to a female co-worker who had left garbage on a bus.

The grievor had a prior disciplinary record, including a recent six-day suspension for insubordination.

The Union argued that termination was excessive and proposed a last chance agreement, citing the grievor's medical history of depression.

The Grievance Settlement Board upheld the discharge, finding the threat was premeditated, the grievor lacked true remorse, and no medical evidence was led to support a last chance agreement or mitigate the risk of future workplace violence.

In a grievance alleging discrimination on the basis of race, colour, and ethnicity regarding the denial of developmental opportunities, the employer moved for a non-suit after the union closed its case.

The Vice-Chair reviewed the legal principles governing non-suit motions, noting that the standard is whether a prima facie case has been established, not a balance of probabilities.

The motion for non-suit was dismissed without written reasons, in accordance with the Board's practice and the parties' agreement, and the hearing was ordered to continue.

The grievor, a Motor Vehicle Repair Officer, was laid off following the closure of the Burtch Correctional Centre.

He was offered a temporary assignment as a Correctional Officer at another facility and later appointed to an unclassified position.

He filed grievances claiming entitlement to travel time and mileage, alleging improper layoff and schedule changes, denial of access to vacancies, and seeking to carry forward his seniority to his unclassified position.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed all grievances, finding no violation of the collective agreement and noting that unclassified employees do not have the right to carry forward seniority.

The union brought a motion to temporarily accommodate the grievor by keeping her on her old work schedule until she could arrange alternate childcare for her child with special needs.

The employer sought to change her schedule to avoid potential workplace conflict with individuals against whom the grievor had previously filed a complaint.

The arbitrator found that the individual need for temporary accommodation outweighed the institution's concerns of possible fractious behaviour, and ordered that the grievor remain on her old schedule until the requested date.

The union filed a grievance concerning the interpretation of benefit provisions in the collective agreement, specifically regarding prescription drugs, diagnostic procedures, and the definition of 'dependent child' in the dental plan.

The union argued that the collective agreement language was clear and prevailed over the insurance plan's limitations.

The employer argued that the insurance plan's qualifiers applied and relied on bargaining history to assert latent ambiguity.

The arbitrator found no ambiguity in the collective agreement's provisions for prescription drugs and diagnostic procedures, holding that the plain language required reimbursement without the insurance plan's qualifiers.

Furthermore, the arbitrator held that the employer violated the statutory freeze period under the Labour Relations Act by unilaterally amending the dental plan's definition of 'dependent child,' and therefore could not rely on the amended definition.

The grievance was allowed.

The employer brought preliminary motions to dismiss three group grievances regarding the evaluation of a compressed work week agreement.

The employer argued the grievances were not arbitrable due to prior Minutes of Settlement and were untimely.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed both motions, finding that the union's 'acknowledgement' of the employer's evaluation criteria in the settlement did not constitute 'agreement' to them, and that the grievances were timely as they were filed shortly after the employer announced the review.

During a legal strike, the parties operated under an Essential Services Agreement.

Following the return to work, the Union filed grievances alleging the Employer violated the collective agreement by failing to schedule and pay essential Correctional Officers for forty hours per week, regardless of actual hours worked.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding it counterintuitive to labour relations to pay striking employees for unworked hours.

The Board held that the essential services agreements clearly indicated normal shift schedules would cease, and any such substantial benefit would require clear and unambiguous language, which was absent.

The Union filed grievances on behalf of Correctional Officers and others at the Thunder Bay Jail, alleging they should have been paid for certain days during a legal strike in March and April 2002.

The parties had agreed to an expedited dispute resolution protocol for strike-related grievances.

The Vice-Chair upheld the grievances in part, ordering the Employer to pay each grievor who was scheduled to work on March 14, 15, and/or 16, 2002, for eight hours per scheduled day.

The union requested to consolidate a discharge grievance with an ongoing harassment grievance before the same Vice-Chair.

The employer agreed on the condition that a previous discipline grievance also be consolidated and heard first.

The union objected, arguing that joining the grievances would unduly delay the discharge hearing.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered that all four grievances be consolidated, finding that the suspension grievance must precede the dismissal grievance to properly determine the state of the grievor's disciplinary record, and adjourned the harassment grievance until the completion of those proceedings.

The union filed a grievance alleging that an unclassified officer should have been converted to full-time status following the restructuring and closure of provincial correctional institutions.

The matter was heard under a mediation/arbitration process established by a Memorandum of Settlement.

The arbitrator found that the grievance should succeed in part, ordering that the grievor was entitled to the Voluntary Exit Option under the collective agreement, with no further compensation owing.

The grievor alleged that the Employer reneged on an oral term of a grievance settlement negotiated on November 26, 2002, which allegedly guaranteed him an interview for a Maintenance Mechanic position.

The written Memorandum of Settlement did not contain any reference to an interview.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the Union failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that the parties were ad idem regarding the interview.

The grievance was dismissed.

The grievor filed a grievance alleging that his demotion to Cook 3 violated a 1992 Memorandum of Agreement which had awarded him the position of Head Cook.

The employer argued that the 1992 agreement did not guarantee the position indefinitely irrespective of ongoing ministry restructuring.

The arbitrator agreed with the employer, finding that the memorandum did not provide permanent protection against workplace changes and that the grievor was treated in accordance with the collective agreement.

The grievance was denied.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued an order vacating a previous interim relief order that had directed the employer to refrain from proceeding with its Personnel Security Checks Initiative.

The Board ordered that the Personnel Screening Checks Policy and Operational Guidelines could be implemented by the employer as of January 1, 2006.

The Board remained seized of issues regarding specific phases of the guidelines and redeployment processes, and directed the parties to meet to review the operation of the policy by September 30, 2006.

The Union filed grievances alleging the Employer violated the collective agreement by requiring certain employees to become members of the Association of Professional Geoscientists of Ontario as a condition of employment, and by refusing to reimburse their annual membership dues.

The Employer raised a preliminary objection that the matter was inarbitrable because the collective agreement contained no provision requiring the reimbursement of such dues.

The Grievance Settlement Board upheld the preliminary objection, finding that the dispute did not arise from the interpretation, application, administration, or alleged contravention of any specific provision of the collective agreement, and therefore the Board lacked jurisdiction to review the Employer's exercise of management rights.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of a correctional officer regarding discipline imposed during a legal strike.

The parties had previously agreed to an expedited dispute resolution protocol for strike-related grievances, which included deciding remaining matters without reasons.

The arbitrator ordered that the grievor's suspension be reduced to ten eight-hour shifts (eighty hours in total) and that she be compensated accordingly.