OGSB 2006

During an arbitration concerning the discipline of three officers following an inmate escape from a transport bus, the Union sought disclosure of letters of counsel issued to three other officers involved in a similar incident.

The Employer opposed the request, offering instead to stipulate the facts of the other incident and raising privacy concerns.

The Grievance Settlement Board ruled that the requested documents were arguably relevant to the Union's claim of discriminatory treatment and that the privacy interests of the other officers did not preclude production.

The Employer was ordered to provide the letters of counsel to the Union.

The union filed grievances claiming overtime entitlement for the grievor based on Minutes of Settlement signed between OPSEU Local 108 and the Ministry.

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

The Vice-Chair dismissed the grievances.

The grievor claimed overtime entitlement based on Minutes of Settlement signed between the union and the employer.

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

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance.

The union filed grievances claiming overtime entitlement for the grievors based on Minutes of Settlement signed between OPSEU Local 108 and the Ministry.

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

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

The grievor received a surplus notice and elected redeployment.

She filed a grievance alleging the Employer violated the Collective Agreement by creating two regular part-time positions instead of one full-time position to which she claimed entitlement.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding no violation of the Collective Agreement, as the Employer has the right under the Management's Rights provision to determine position creation, and there is no entitlement to cross-Ministry appointments.

The grievor, an unclassified correctional officer, alleged she did not receive her 40 hours of work before overtime was assigned to classified correctional officers.

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

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

The parties reached a Memorandum of Settlement regarding several grievances, which required the Employer to replace a letter of reprimand with a letter of counsel.

The settlement stipulated that the content of the letter of counsel was subject to the approval of the parties.

The Union rejected the Employer's drafted letter of counsel, arguing it was overly retrospective, accusatory, and failed to clearly set out expectations for future conduct.

The Grievance Settlement Board, remaining seized of the settlement's implementation, found that the Union reasonably exercised its right to reject the draft.

The Board ordered the Employer to revise the letter of counsel to be more forward-looking and instructive.

The grievor alleged that he was improperly denied overtime.

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

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance.

The grievor, a Correctional Officer, filed a grievance alleging the Employer violated Ministry policy by failing to laterally transfer him to the Chatham Jail during a restructuring process, instead rolling over two other employees into positions there.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that all staff movement was managed by the Transition Implementation Committee in the best interests of the most employees, and there is no automatic right to a lateral transfer under the Collective Agreement.

The grievor, an unclassified Correctional Officer, filed a grievance alleging he was unjustly terminated and subsequently denied a rollover into full-time classified status.

He had previously signed a Memorandum of Settlement restoring him to unclassified status at a different facility, which included a 'full and final' clause.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, holding that the grievor could not revisit the binding settlement agreement simply because subsequent circumstances did not unfold to his liking.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of an employee alleging that he was denied overtime opportunities because he was prematurely moved from the Guelph Correctional Centre to a new position in Milton during a facility restructuring.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, noting that a previous decision by the Board had already determined that the employee was not improperly or prematurely moved.

The union filed grievances alleging that the grievor was improperly denied overtime.

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

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievances.

In an interim decision during a grievance arbitration, the union sought an adjournment to contact individuals and recall an employer witness for further cross-examination.

The union argued it was surprised by the witness's denial of having complained to management about a co-worker.

The employer objected, asserting the union had prior notice of the denial.

The Vice-Chair reviewed the hearing notes and concluded the union had been clearly informed during earlier cross-examination that the witness would deny the allegations.

Consequently, the union's request to recall the witness was denied.

The grievor alleged unfair treatment regarding a job competition.

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

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the employer to accommodate the grievor in the Clerk IV Supply position on a permanent basis and to red-circle his current rate of pay for six months.

The grievor, a correctional officer, filed grievances alleging the Employer violated the Collective Agreement by assigning officers with less seniority to the Metro East Detention Centre and alleging harassment.

The grievances arose during a period of restructuring and facility closures governed by transition agreements.

The arbitrator found that the transition committee complied with the Collective Agreement and the transition agreements in making assignments based on employee rights and options.

The grievances were dismissed due to a lack of evidence supporting the allegations.

At the commencement of the scheduled hearing, the union representative requested an adjournment because the grievor failed to attend.

The employer opposed the request, noting this was not the first time the grievor had failed to appear at the last minute.

The Vice-Chair granted the adjournment but ordered that future hearing dates would be peremptory on the grievor, warning that further failures to attend could result in the grievance being dismissed.

The grievor, a Correctional Officer, filed a grievance alleging the Employer violated the Collective Agreement regarding a job offer at a new facility following restructuring.

The grievor also complained about not receiving promotions after transferring to the new facility.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding no evidence of a violation regarding the transfer, and noting that complaints about promotions should be filed against the new facility.

The grievors filed grievances alleging that it was unreasonable that they be pepper sprayed in order to pass the community escort training program.

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

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievances.

The union filed grievances alleging the employer failed to properly accommodate the grievor's asthma and sensitivity to cigarette smoke at a youth centre.

Prior to the hearing, the employer requested the grievor's complete decoded OHIP summary and clinical notes from all medical practitioners since June 2004.

The union opposed the breadth of the request, arguing it violated the grievor's privacy rights, and proposed providing a specific medical report from the grievor's family doctor instead.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the employer's broad request, finding it too invasive as the grievor was not making a generalized claim placing his entire medical history in issue.

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

The grievor alleged that he was not offered an overtime shift despite being on the overtime list, in violation of the local overtime policy.

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

The Vice-Chair found no merit to the grievance and dismissed it.