OGSB 2006

The Union brought a motion for interim relief, requesting the Board to order the Employer to place the grievor on a paid leave of absence pending the resolution of her grievances alleging harassment and a poisoned work environment.

The grievor had exhausted her short-term sick leave and was on an unpaid leave of absence.

The Board denied the motion, finding that the balance of harm or convenience did not favor the grievor, as there was no medical evidence to support her claim that she was unable to work or that returning to work would cause her medical harm.

The Board also noted that granting the relief would subvert the Employer's accommodation and long-term income protection processes.

The union grieved the employer's decision not to select the grievor for the Institutional Crisis Intervention Team (ICIT).

The grievor passed the physical fitness and screening interview stages but was not selected by the Superintendent based on attendance and work performance.

The union argued the employer acted in bad faith.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that reliable attendance is a reasonable requirement for the ICIT position given the unpredictable nature of crisis intervention.

The union filed grievances on behalf of unclassified employees with less than five years of service, alleging they were denied severance pay.

The arbitrator found that the severance provisions in Articles 53 and 78 of the collective agreement are not included in the list of articles applicable to unclassified employees under Article 31A.

As the grievors were unclassified employees, the severance provisions did not apply to them.

The grievances were dismissed.

The union filed a group grievance alleging the employer contravened the collective agreement by taking too long to implement negotiated wage increases.

At the hearing, the union advised it had no dispute with the employer regarding the subject matter.

The grievance was dismissed.

The union filed a group grievance claiming the grievors were entitled to the Oak Ridge salary note G24 even though they did not work at Oak Ridge.

At the hearing, the union took the position that it had no dispute with the employer regarding the subject matter of the grievance.

Consequently, the grievance was dismissed.

The union filed a group grievance alleging that the employer violated Article 8.2.1 of the collective agreement.

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

The arbitrator dismissed the group grievance.

The parties referred a grievance to mediation/arbitration regarding four Letters of Counsel issued to the grievor for failure to report, punctuality/sign-in requirements, and inappropriate conduct.

The parties requested a 'without precedent' decision with no reasons.

The arbitrator concluded that the employer had sufficient cause to discipline the grievor and dismissed the grievance.

The grievor alleged that the employer violated Article 8.2.1 of the collective agreement by failing to assign hospital escorts to escort officers in a fair and equitable manner.

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

The Vice-Chair dismissed the grievance after considering the submissions and jurisprudence.

The union filed grievances alleging that the employer violated the collective agreement by failing to distribute statutory holiday work opportunities fairly and equitably.

The employer argued that while the collective agreement provides for equitable distribution of overtime, it does not grant a contractual right to work on statutory holidays.

The arbitrator agreed with the employer, finding no breach of the collective agreement, and dismissed the grievances.

The employer brought a motion to consolidate eight grievances filed by the same grievor before the Grievance Settlement Board.

The union opposed the consolidation on the technical grounds that some grievances had not yet been subject to mediation.

The Vice-Chair granted the motion, ruling that the board's broad powers to consolidate grievances should be used to avoid inefficient consequences such as multiple hearings and inconsistent decisions.

The grievances were consolidated and a specific process was established for hearing them.

The union grieved a written reprimand issued to the grievor for returning late from his meal break.

The parties referred the matter to mediation/arbitration and requested a without precedent decision with no reasons.

The arbitrator concluded the employer had sufficient cause to discipline the grievor and dismissed the grievances.

The grievor, an Information Officer 3, grieved the outcome of a job competition for a Communications Officer position, arguing she should have been awarded the position as the senior applicant and that the competition was flawed.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that while the employer's exclusive reliance on interview scores and a writing assignment—without reviewing resumes, personnel files, or conducting reference checks for all interviewed candidates—constituted a procedural flaw, the union failed to prove that these flaws affected the outcome.

The successful candidates provided more detailed, sophisticated answers and demonstrated more directly relevant experience.

The grievance was dismissed.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued directions for the mutual production of arguably relevant email messages and written communications relating to the grievor.

The employer was directed to produce communications involving specified individuals, and the union was directed to produce communications involving the grievor.

The Board also established a process for asserting claims of privilege and authorized the employer to search its computer systems and email accounts to locate relevant documents.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued procedural directions in a grievance arbitration between OPSEU and the Crown.

The directions ordered the employer to allow the union access to the grievor's personnel file, required the union to provide further particulars regarding existing and additional grievances sought to be consolidated, set a deadline for the employer's response to the consolidation request, and established a deadline for the employer to notify the union of any preliminary objections.

The grievor was hired on an unclassified contract as an Operator Trainee, which required him to obtain an O.I.T. license.

Despite extensions and assistance, he failed to obtain the license.

During his final contract extension, he suffered a workplace injury and went on WSIB benefits.

The employer subsequently notified him that his contract would not be renewed.

The union grieved, alleging the cessation of employment was a termination based on disability contrary to the Human Rights Code.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievances, finding that the cessation was a non-renewal based solely on the grievor's failure to obtain the required qualifications, and that the employer had no duty to accommodate by renewing the contract of an employee totally incapacitated from working.

The union grieved a Letter of Counsel issued to the grievor for making inappropriate comments to a fellow employee.

The parties referred the matter to mediation/arbitration and requested a without-precedent decision with no reasons.

The arbitrator concluded the employer had sufficient cause to discipline the grievor and dismissed the grievance.

The union filed grievances alleging that the employer violated the overtime provisions of the collective agreement by failing to offer the grievor overtime opportunities on several occasions.

The parties referred the matter to mediation/arbitration and requested a without precedent decision with no reasons.

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

The Union brought a motion for interim relief requesting that the grievor be placed on a paid leave of absence pending the resolution of several grievances.

The Employer objected to the Board's jurisdiction, argued that particulars had not been provided, and objected to the Union relying on the grievor's affidavit without calling her to testify.

The Vice-Chair held that the Board had jurisdiction to hear the motion under section 48(12)(i) of the Labour Relations Act.

However, the Vice-Chair ordered the Union to provide particulars regarding the grievances and the alleged adverse impact.

The Vice-Chair also ruled that the Union could not rely exclusively on the grievor's affidavit without calling her to testify, as the Employer had a right to cross-examination.

In a discharge arbitration, the union brought a motion to exclude a report by the Office of the Children's Lawyer that the employer had relied upon in its decision to terminate the grievor.

The report was part of a family court file that was subsequently sealed by a Superior Court judge.

The employer argued that because it had obtained and relied on the report before the sealing order was made, the report should be admissible to provide a complete picture of the termination decision.

The arbitrator held that the arbitration is a public proceeding and the sealing order must be respected.

The report and any viva voce evidence regarding its contents were ruled inadmissible.

The Union filed grievances on behalf of correctional officers seeking reimbursement for training costs incurred before they became unclassified employees, alleging differential treatment compared to managers who received compressed training during a legal strike.

In a supplementary decision, the Vice-Chair clarified that the grievances were dismissed because the Board lacked jurisdiction, as the grievors were not yet employees at the time they took the training.