OGSB 2006

The Employer brought a motion to dismiss several grievances and limit the scope of evidence in an arbitration concerning alleged gender discrimination and harassment.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed two grievances that had been previously withdrawn by the Union, finding it lacked jurisdiction to hear them.

A third grievance from 1990 was dismissed as abandoned due to a 16-year delay.

The Board also granted the Employer's motion to exclude evidence regarding previously settled grievances and events occurring more than three years prior to the current grievances, concluding that admitting such evidence would undermine the finality of settlements and prejudice the Employer.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the adjournment of scheduled hearing dates due to pending related criminal proceedings.

The Board also ordered the Union to provide signed consent forms for the grievor's OHIP, family physician, and chiropractor records.

The Employer was ordered to provide a full, unedited copy of the Preliminary Review Report and the Report of the Investigation into Allegations of Resident Abuse, including witness statements, as well as information regarding injuries to two residents.

The documents are to be used solely for the litigation.

The union failed to attend a scheduled hearing before the Grievance Settlement Board despite having actual knowledge of the date.

The employer requested that the matter be dismissed with costs.

The Vice-Chair directed the registrar to reschedule the matter and ordered the union to show cause at the next hearing date why the grievance should not be dismissed.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance after the grievor failed to attend the scheduled hearing.

In a prior decision, the Board had given the union ten business days to provide an explanation for the absence and to show good cause why the grievance should not be dismissed.

As no explanation was received within the allotted time, the grievance was dismissed.

The union filed grievances alleging the employer violated the collective agreement by failing to assign regular days off on statutory holidays.

The employer had changed its scheduling practice to reduce staffing on statutory holidays, resulting in statutory holidays no longer falling on regular days off for employees.

The union argued this was an ad hoc change made in bad faith to avoid paying lieu days.

The arbitrator found the scheduling change was a legitimate, systemic operational change, not an ad hoc revision, and dismissed the grievances.

At the commencement of the hearing, the union and the employer agreed to adjourn the matter sine die.

The grievor requested that another hearing date be set.

The Vice-Chair ruled that the grievor lacks standing to advance such a request, as only the union and the employer have standing to schedule a hearing before the Grievance Settlement Board.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued an interim award following a multi-day arbitration hearing.

The Vice-Chair ordered the immediate reinstatement of the grievor to his former position, or alternatively, placement on sick leave benefits if fitness to return to work was an issue.

Full reasons for the reinstatement were to follow.

The union grieved the discharge of a Claims Adjudicator who was dismissed for allegedly conspiring with a previous claimant and another employee to defraud the WSIB of approximately $55,000.

The employer relied heavily on a tape-recorded statement from a co-conspirator implicating the grievor.

The union challenged the admissibility of the statement, arguing it was obtained in violation of the co-conspirator's Charter and union representation rights.

The arbitrator admitted the statement, finding no Charter or representation rights were breached during the investigation interview, and concluded there was clear and cogent evidence that the grievor participated in the fraud.

The grievance was denied.

A group grievance was filed by 28 employees alleging the employer violated the collective agreement by paying staff performing the same 'vehicle resolve work' on temporary assignment at different rates of pay.

During mediation-arbitration, the union acknowledged that the employer's compensation method complied with article 8 of the collective agreement.

Consequently, the union conceded there was no dispute, and the grievance was dismissed.

The union sought production of documents in a grievance arbitration.

The employer claimed solicitor-client privilege, litigation privilege, and Wigmore privilege over numerous internal communications.

The Vice-Chair reviewed the documents, upholding solicitor-client and litigation privilege for communications involving legal advice or prepared for the dominant purpose of litigation.

However, the Vice-Chair dismissed the employer's claims of Wigmore privilege over internal labour relations and human resources communications, finding that the benefit of resolving disputes based on a fair and open process outweighed any injury to internal communications.

The grievor began testifying at his grievance arbitration but was subsequently hospitalized.

At the continuation of the hearing, the union provided a medical note indicating the grievor suffered from significant mental illness and that stress led to dangerous blood pressure levels.

The grievor requested the hearing continue without his testimony, but the union did not intend to call other witnesses.

The Vice-Chair determined the grievor was medically incapable of continuing his testimony and adjourned the hearing until the union could provide satisfactory medical documentation that the grievor was capable of proceeding.

During a grievance arbitration regarding workplace harassment based on sexual orientation, the employer indicated it would seek damages against the union if found liable, alleging a union president was the main harasser.

The union brought a motion arguing the board lacked jurisdiction to hear what amounted to a counterclaim without a formal grievance, and a second motion seeking an order preventing adverse findings against the union.

The Grievance Settlement Board granted the first motion, finding it had no jurisdiction to hear an entirely different matter not properly grieved by the employer.

The board dismissed the second motion, holding that refusing to make adverse findings before hearing all evidence would be a denial of fairness.

The matter was scheduled for a mediation-arbitration hearing.

The grievor failed to attend the hearing and the Employer advised that the grievor had resigned effective that day.

The Employer moved to dismiss the grievance.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the Union to provide an explanation for the grievor's failure to attend and to show good cause within ten days why the grievance should not be dismissed.

The Union filed grievances alleging the Employer violated the collective agreement by failing to offer overtime to local employees when an external team was brought in for a special project.

During the hearing, the Employer brought a motion for non-suit, arguing there was insufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case.

By agreement of the parties, the Vice-Chair dismissed the non-suit motion without providing reasons, to avoid giving the moving party an unfair advantage.

The Vice-Chair also declined the Union's request to issue a general direction regarding the provision of particulars in future non-suit motions.

The Union and Employer participated in a conference call regarding a union grievance over the inclusion of certain positions in the bargaining unit.

The Vice-Chair issued an interim ruling directing the Employer to immediately apply the full terms and conditions of the collective agreement to the agreed-upon positions.

The ruling addressed the application of the benefit plan, commencement of dues deductions, calculation of seniority dates excluding student service, maintenance of current pay rates (with an adjustment for a seasonal position receiving a benefit allowance), and transfer of incumbents to the OPSEU Pension Trust.

The issue of back dues was deferred to the hearing on the merits.

The Union filed a grievance claiming that the insurer was holding an excessive amount of employee funds in the Guaranteed Unrestricted Deposit Account (GUDA) and sought confirmation of employee ownership of these funds, disclosure of underwriting documents, and a premium holiday.

The Employer raised a preliminary objection that the grievance was not arbitrable because the collective agreement did not explicitly cover the administration of the GUDA or surplus funds.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the Employer's objection, finding that the essential character of the dispute arose implicitly from the collective agreement provisions requiring employees to pay premiums for insured benefits.

The grievance was ruled arbitrable and allowed to proceed to a hearing on the merits.

The Union filed grievances on behalf of rehired Correctional Officers, challenging the Ministry's decision to place them at a lower rate of pay than they previously held, alleging differential treatment compared to other rehired employees.

The Vice-Chair entertained submissions on the remedial issue but reserved the decision, directing that the matter be set down for a hearing to address the Ministry's preliminary objection regarding the Grievance Settlement Board's jurisdiction to entertain the grievances.

The union referred a previously settled grievance back to arbitration.

The employer requested particulars regarding the union's claim, as it was unaware of the specific dispute.

The union did not dispute the employer's right to particulars.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the union to provide written particulars detailing its claim and any alleged non-compliance with the minutes of settlement by December 1, 2006, with the hearing scheduled to continue on February 5, 2007.

The parties disputed the interpretation of compressed work week (CWW) agreements at the Whitby Mental Health Centre.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued declarations clarifying that the CWW agreements do not require an annual review unless requested or if termination is contemplated, specified voting procedures if a review occurs, clarified that team leaders are not always required to work 8-hour shifts, stated that up to 15% of staff may be required to work 8-hour shifts if operationally necessary, and confirmed that pre-existing shift change policies are not altered.

The grievances were terminated.

The grievor, a Lab Attendant, filed grievances alleging harassment, discrimination, and unjust dismissal after her employment was terminated for failing to return to work or provide a medical certificate.

After numerous hearing days, the parties agreed to have the Board decide the matter based on the evidence heard to date under Article 22.16 of the Collective Agreement.

The Board found that the employment relationship was irreparably damaged and ordered the terms of a Memorandum of Settlement into effect, with minor alterations regarding career transition support and tuition payments.