OGSB 2006

In a grievance arbitration concerning the grievor's termination, the employer sought an adjournment to apply to family court to lift or amend a sealing order on a Children's Lawyer report.

The employer argued the report was integral to its decision to terminate the grievor.

The union opposed the adjournment, citing delay and the unlikelihood of the employer's success in family court.

The arbitrator granted the adjournment, finding that the delay would not materially prejudice the grievor given the overall length of the proceedings, and that the employer would be prejudiced if denied the opportunity to seek access to a document it relied upon in its decision-making.

The union filed a grievance alleging that the employer violated the collective agreement by failing to reimburse the grievor's legal costs.

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

The arbitrator found no merit to the grievance and dismissed it.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of an employee alleging that he was not paid the proper rate of pay or given the correct work schedule while acting as TAP Coordinator.

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.

The Grievance Settlement Board convened to address a backlog of grievances filed by court services employees.

Following previous decisions and procedural agreements, the Board heard submissions and made determinations on several matters.

Some grievances were referred to a subcommittee, some were consolidated, one was withdrawn, and several were dismissed where there was no dispute between the parties.

The remaining matters were scheduled to be heard on a peremptory basis.

The union filed grievances on behalf of unclassified employees claiming entitlement to merit pay.

The employer objected that the grievances were untimely because they were filed months after the implementation of a new ministry policy on merit increases.

The Grievance Settlement Board found the grievances were timely because the employees only subjectively became aware of their right to grieve shortly before filing.

On the issue of retroactivity, the Board declined to award full retroactivity to the employees' dates of hire, instead applying the standard 20-day retroactivity rule, limiting compensation to the period commencing 20 days prior to the filing of the grievances.

The union raised a preliminary objection arguing that a four-day suspension imposed on the grievor was void ab initio because the employer failed to provide advance notice and union representation during a meeting, as required by Article 26.3 of the collective agreement.

The meeting involved a police officer investigating a workplace altercation, with a management representative present.

The arbitrator found that the presence of the management representative created a potential for the grievor to make statements against his interest, triggering the protections of Article 26.3.

The failure to provide these protections rendered the discipline void ab initio.

The union filed individual and group grievances claiming the employer violated the collective agreement by failing to extend a weekend shift premium negotiated for the correctional bargaining unit to employees at the Whitby Mental Health Centre.

At the hearing, the union advised it was not pursuing the grievances further.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievances.

The union grieved the employer's failure to implement a Memorandum of Settlement regarding the grievor's workplace accommodation.

The settlement required the grievor to undergo an independent medical examination (IME).

The grievor objected to the employer's use of an insurance company to facilitate the IME and the broad scope of the medical release form.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered that the grievor be permitted to seek a referral from his family doctor to a specialist for the IME.

The Board further ordered that if this process failed, the parties must cooperate to select a medical expert without using the insurance company as a facilitator, and the release form must be approved by the union and the grievor.

The union filed grievances on behalf of several employees regarding their continuous service dates.

The matter proceeded under an expedited mediation-arbitration protocol.

The union adduced evidence that reasonable efforts were made to contact the grievors, but they failed to respond.

After reviewing the submissions and the collective agreement, the Vice-Chair dismissed the grievances.

The Grievance Settlement Board directed the union and the employer to continue abiding by the terms of a previously agreed protocol regarding document production.

The union was directed to secure and provide copies of arguably relevant documents to the employer by April 30, 2006, after which the employer would have 30 days to identify any outstanding production issues.

During a teleconference call, the Union sought disclosure of particulars and documents relating to the employer's investigation of workplace accommodations for the grievor, as well as information on specific job vacancies.

The Vice-Chair of the Grievance Settlement Board ruled that all the requested information was arguably relevant and ordered it to be exchanged prior to the next mediation date.

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 Service Providers who employ the NILOs sought intervener status in the arbitration.

The Grievance Settlement Board denied the request, finding that the Service Providers' interest was merely indirect and contingent on their commercial contracts with the Employer.

Because the core dispute concerned whether the work belonged to the bargaining unit, the Service Providers lacked the direct interest in labour or employment law required to justify third-party standing.

The Union filed a group grievance on behalf of Clerks at the Employer's Durham Warehouse, claiming they were entitled to a uniform allowance under the collective agreement.

The collective agreement provided a uniform allowance to employees who were 'previously eligible for uniforms'.

The Union argued that the Clerks' duties and working conditions exposed them to dirt and damage similar to Warehouse Workers, making them eligible.

The Employer maintained that Clerks had never been issued or asked for uniforms, and their duties were primarily clerical and performed in offices.

The arbitrator found that the Clerks spent the vast majority of their time in offices and were not exposed to the same level of dirt or damage as Warehouse Workers.

The grievance was dismissed.

The union filed grievances alleging that the employer contravened the overtime provision of the collective agreement by not including attendance credits in the calculation of overtime for unclassified correctional officers.

The union argued that an employee using an attendance credit for a sick day should be treated as having worked that day for the purpose of reaching the weekly overtime threshold.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievances, finding that the collective agreement required unclassified employees to actually perform work to meet the overtime threshold, and that the use of attendance credits provided income protection only, not deemed hours worked for overtime purposes.

The union filed grievances claiming damages because correctional officers at a youth centre were not issued uniforms between 1999 and 2002.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the grievances, arguing they did not disclose a breach of the collective agreement and only alleged a breach of the employer's policy and management rights.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the essential character of the dispute concerned the provision of uniforms, a subject matter not explicitly or implicitly covered by the collective agreement.

Consequently, the Board lacked jurisdiction to consider the grievances, and the employer's motion to dismiss was granted.

The grievor alleged that the overtime protocol at the Metro-West Detention Centre was not followed on August 3, 2005.

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

The Vice-Chair dismissed the grievance.

The union filed a grievance after a Correctional Officer worked an 18-hour shift, exceeding the agreed 16-hour maximum.

The employer argued it had difficulty filling the shift due to sick leaves and a hospital escort, but no emergency was declared.

The arbitrator found that the employer breached the 16-hour maximum in a non-emergency situation and issued a declaration to that effect.

The grievor, who suffered from an alcohol addiction, was reinstated under a last chance agreement (LCA) that required her to provide medical documentation within three days of returning from any absence.

She was absent for one day due to an illness unrelated to her addiction and provided the medical note late, resulting in her termination.

The union grieved the termination, arguing the LCA requirement was discriminatory under the Human Rights Code.

The arbitrator found that the three-day requirement imposed a higher standard on the grievor because of her disability, making it discriminatory.

As the employer did not establish that the requirement was a bona fide occupational requirement or that accommodating the delay caused undue hardship, the LCA provision was void and unenforceable.

The grievance was allowed and the grievor reinstated.

The union filed grievances on behalf of employees in various job classifications, alleging the employer violated the collective agreement by failing to include their classifications in the Correctional bargaining unit.

The parties proceeded by an agreed statement of fact.

The collective agreement and the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act establish specific bargaining units, and the parties agreed that amending the classifications within the Corrections bargaining unit requires mutual consent.

The union conceded there was no dispute regarding the employer's administration of the current classifications.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievances, finding no evidence that the employer breached the collective agreement or relevant legislation.

The employer moved to dismiss a grievance alleging discrimination on the basis of marital status.

The grievor had been transferred to a different store because she was married to a co-worker.

The employer argued the transfer was implemented pursuant to a binding memorandum of settlement resolving the husband's earlier grievance.

The arbitrator dismissed the employer's preliminary motion, holding that neither a union nor an employee can contract out of the protections of the Human Rights Code.

Because the settlement itself was premised on the spousal relationship and prima facie raised a potential violation of the Code, it did not bar an inquiry into the legitimacy of the transfer.