OGSB 2006

The Union filed a bargaining unit integrity grievance alleging that the Employer violated the collective agreement by using fee-for-service Native Inmate Liaison Officers (NILOs) to perform bargaining unit work.

Several third-party service providers sought intervener status in the arbitration.

The Grievance Settlement Board denied the request, finding that the service providers' interests were purely contractual and indirect.

Because the core dispute concerned whether the work belonged to the bargaining unit, the service providers did not have a direct interest grounded in labour or employment law sufficient to warrant standing.

The employer moved to dismiss a grievance alleging that the grievor's transfer was discriminatory based on marital status, arguing the transfer was implemented pursuant to a prior grievance settlement involving the grievor's spouse.

The arbitrator dismissed the preliminary objection, holding that parties cannot contract out of the Human Rights Code and that a settlement agreement does not bar an inquiry into whether its terms violate an employee's statutory human rights.

In an accommodation grievance regarding exposure to cigarette smoke in the workplace, the Employer requested the grievor's complete medical history and OHIP summary since June 2004.

The Union opposed the breadth of the request, proposing instead a specific medical report from the grievor's family doctor.

The Grievance Settlement Board found the Employer's request too invasive, as the grievor was not making a generalized claim that placed his entire medical history in issue.

The Board directed the grievor to provide a medical report responding to specific questions about his asthma, absences, and stress-related problems.

The union filed grievances on behalf of two correctional officers alleging they were wrongfully displaced to the Ontario Correctional Institute during a period of facility closures and restructuring.

The grievors claimed the employer failed to properly determine staffing levels and assign positions fairly.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievances, finding that the employer has the express right to determine the staffing complement and there was no evidence that the applicable transition agreements were violated or that the employer acted in bad faith.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of an employee who had requested and received a permanent relocation assignment to a different correctional facility on compassionate grounds.

The employee later argued that the assignment should have been considered temporary, which would have entitled him to travel time and mileage, because his original facility was closing and he would have been moved eventually.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that the written agreement clearly stated the assignment was permanent and did not provide for travel time and mileage, and the employee had agreed to those terms.

The grievor, a Rehabilitation Officer, filed a grievance alleging that the employer violated the collective agreement and MERC agreements during the restructuring and closure of the Whitby Jail.

The grievor claimed she was improperly denied a position at the Central East Correctional Centre and sought relocation costs and damages.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the transition process was followed correctly, the grievor had insufficient seniority for the requested position, and she was properly provided with redeployment rights.

The grievance was dismissed.

Nine Correctional Officers and a Cook filed grievances claiming entitlement to travel time and mileage during temporary assignments at the Millbrook Correctional Centre following its decommissioning.

The assignments were posted as voluntary opportunities to assist with the transition of operations.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievances, finding that the assignments were entirely voluntary and that the employees had applied for and accepted the work with advance notice that no travel time or mileage would be paid.

Thirty-eight employees filed a group grievance claiming entitlement to travel time and mileage expenses after relocating to the St. Lawrence Valley Correctional and Treatment Centre.

The grievors had voluntarily accepted permanent assignments at the new facility in 2003.

Subsequently, due to facility closures, other employees were temporarily assigned to the same facility and received travel expenses.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the employer's good faith agreement to pay expenses for temporary assignees did not retroactively oblige it to pay expenses to employees who had already accepted permanent assignments.

The union requested additional disclosure of documents and further particulars regarding two grievances filed by a correctional officer.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the employer to produce the grievor's exams, marking keys, and information relating to an instructor's alleged comments, as well as particulars regarding the decision to delay the grievor's request for a compassionate day.

In an interim order regarding multiple consolidated grievances, the Grievance Settlement Board noted that eight of eleven grievances were finalized by settlement or withdrawal.

For the remaining three grievances, the Board ordered the union to provide particulars by May 24, 2006.

A request to consolidate two additional grievances was scheduled for a teleconference.

Several classified Correctional Officers grieved that they were entitled to travel time and mileage for the period between receiving notice of a lateral transfer to a new institution and the actual commencement of their new assignment.

During this transition period, the grievors continued to work at their original home institution.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievances, finding that the grievors were working at their own institution due to operational requirements and were not deployed to a different institution, thus distinguishing their situation from previous cases where travel time and mileage were awarded.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of a correctional officer, alleging the employer improperly denied his request to remain at his work location until its closure and instead transferred him to an institution slated for closure.

The arbitrator found that under the applicable transition agreement, mutual agreement was required for an employee to remain at a work location after inmates had left.

As the employer did not agree and there was no evidence of bad faith or discrimination, the grievance was denied.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of an unclassified Cook 2, alleging the employer violated the collective agreement by failing to convert her to classified status.

The arbitrator reviewed the hours worked during the relevant eighteen-month period.

Even accepting the grievor's own calculation of her hours, she fell short of the 2,868 hours required for conversion.

The grievance was denied.

In a grievance arbitration concerning the denial of sick leave and unfair dismissal, the Employer raised preliminary issues regarding the venue of the hearing, the sufficiency of the Union's particulars, and the production of documents.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered that the hearing be convened in Peterborough on the day the Union's medical expert testifies.

The Board also ordered the Union to provide further particulars for specific paragraphs of its assertions.

Regarding document production, the Board ordered the production of meeting notes and the grievor's personal diary, but declined to order the production of further medical records at this stage of the proceedings.

The grievor, a former Correctional Officer with permanent physical restrictions, was accommodated as a Records Clerk in 1998 pursuant to a grievance settlement.

In 2005, he filed a new grievance seeking to be accommodated in his pre-injury position of Correctional Officer, arguing the duty to accommodate is ongoing.

The employer brought a preliminary motion arguing the 1998 settlement barred the current grievance.

The Grievance Settlement Board allowed the employer's motion and dismissed the grievance, finding that the 1998 settlement was valid, did not conflict with the Human Rights Code, and exhausted the grievor's accommodation rights absent a change in his medical condition or workplace circumstances.

The grievor, a retail sales tax auditor, was discharged after the employer discovered she had obtained her position using fraudulent academic credentials.

The grievor claimed her abusive ex-husband had forced her to submit the false documents and that she was powerless to resist.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that while her initial deception might have been influenced by her husband, her continued concealment of the truth for four years after their separation was voluntary and dishonest.

Applying the Gould approach, the Board concluded that the grievor's ongoing deceit and failure to take responsibility destroyed the employment relationship, establishing just cause for discharge.

The grievance was dismissed.

The union grieved the result of a job competition for two Program Analyst positions, alleging the competition was flawed and unfair to the grievor.

The grievor claimed she was disadvantaged during the software aptitude test due to computer difficulties and that the interview process was rushed and biased.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding no evidence of bias, that the interview and testing processes were reasonable and consistent, and that the grievor's failure to report alleged computer difficulties at the time undermined her claim.

The successful candidates were demonstrably more qualified and able.

The union filed grievances alleging the employer failed to provide paid meal and rest breaks to correctional staff at the Ottawa Carleton Detention Centre.

Following a partial settlement, the union sought compensation for breaks allegedly denied.

Given the large number of claimants and the fact-specific nature of each claim, the Grievance Settlement Board ordered the parties to exchange written particulars and produce relevant documents prior to further hearing dates to ensure an efficient hearing process.

The union and employer had agreed to argue the legal question of whether time spent at muster is compensable under the collective agreement.

On the scheduled hearing date, the employer requested an adjournment, stating counsel lacked instructions to proceed in the absence of the client.

The union opposed the request.

The Vice-Chair expressed concern over the employer resiling from the agreement without adequate explanation, but granted the adjournment on the condition that the issue be argued by teleconference on a specified date.

The union grieved that the employer violated the collective agreement by denying correctional officers at a youth centre paid rest and meal breaks away from their direct duties.

The employer brought a preliminary application to dismiss the grievances without a hearing on the merits.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the collective agreement provisions relied upon by the union did not require formal, paid breaks away from residents, consistent with prior jurisprudence.

The Board also found that the union's particulars failed to establish facts that would demonstrate a risk to health and safety under Article 9.

The preliminary application was allowed and the grievances were dismissed.