OGSB 2008

The employer brought a motion to dismiss the grievance after the grievor failed to attend the scheduled arbitration hearing.

The union had made reasonable efforts to contact the grievor and provide notice of the hearing, but the grievor was uncooperative and did not provide any indication of when she would be available.

The arbitrator declined to exercise the discretion to adjourn the matter, noting that the grievor's conduct prevented the hearing from proceeding and caused prejudice.

The motion was granted and the grievance was dismissed.

In a grievance arbitration concerning the exclusion of Operational Manager positions from the bargaining unit, the proposed intervener union sought standing.

The grieving union requested production of documents relating to the proposed intervener's status.

The arbitrator ordered the employer and the proposed intervener to produce documents relating to the settlement of previous grievances and collective bargaining, subject to claims of privilege or relevance.

The union filed grievances on behalf of two employees regarding their placement on the salary grid upon promotion.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the grievances were untimely.

The arbitrator found that the grievances were filed approximately three months after the time limits expired.

Applying the factors for extending time limits under s. 48(16) of the Labour Relations Act, the arbitrator found no reasonable grounds for the delay and declined to extend the time limits.

The grievances were dismissed as untimely.

The union filed a grievance alleging the employer contravened the collective agreement by failing to provide modified duties to a correctional officer who sustained an ankle injury.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the grievance was untimely.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the time for filing the grievance started to run when the employee was advised she could not start work with modified duties, not ten months later when she learned another employee was working with an air cast.

The Board declined to extend the time limits under section 48(16) of the Labour Relations Act, finding no reasonable grounds.

The grievance was dismissed.

In the course of an arbitration, the employer sought disclosure of notes contained in the grievor's diary.

The Grievance Settlement Board ruled that any notes recording events, conversations, or interactions between the grievor and the employer about which she testified or will testify are not protected by litigation privilege.

The union was directed to disclose such notes, with unrelated information to be excluded.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued an order amending a previous order dated January 16, 2007, regarding a policy grievance by AMAPCEO.

The amendment requires the Employer to provide an updated list of all persons not formally designated as employees who regularly attend at employer-controlled sites for more than ninety days, specifying how the total number of days is calculated.

The grievor suffered a workplace injury and received WSIB benefits.

During his absence, his position was privatized.

He elected to take a surplus package rather than transfer to the new service provider.

When he was deemed fit to return to work, his surplus election took effect and he received his surplus benefits.

He grieved, alleging discrimination and failure to accommodate.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the employer properly followed the collective agreement and that there was no evidence of discrimination or failure to accommodate.

The union grieved the employer's decision to restrict a Conservation Officer to clerical duties and deny him his firearm and badge pending an independent medical examination (IME).

The employer argued the grievor's past behaviour, including a firearm storage incident and angry outbursts, raised safety concerns justifying the IME under the collective agreement.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the employer lacked reasonable and probable grounds to believe the grievor was unable to perform his duties for health reasons, as the past incidents were treated as culpable misconduct rather than health issues.

The grievance was allowed, and the employer was directed to restore the grievor to full duties.

The union alleged that the employer breached a grievance settlement agreement by delaying a job posting and expanding the geographic area of search without disclosing this intention during negotiations.

The settlement had granted the grievor an interview for an upcoming temporary vacancy.

The arbitrator found that while the employer should have disclosed the expanded search area during negotiations, the omission was not in bad faith.

Furthermore, the grievor was granted the interview but failed to meet the minimum scoring threshold, meaning voiding the settlement would provide no practical advantage.

The grievance was dismissed.

The employer brought a motion to dismiss the union's grievances relating to compensation for pilots and co-pilots for being required to call into work prior to their scheduled shift.

The employer argued that the parties had settled this issue in two agreements entered into in April 2004, and therefore the Board lacked jurisdiction based on issue estoppel.

The Board dismissed the motion, finding that the April 2004 agreements settled grievances on a go-forward basis and did not extinguish prior rights.

Furthermore, the issues settled in the agreements were different from the issues before the Board, as they relied on different contracts.

The union filed grievances on behalf of three Air Quality Analysts (AQAs) after the employer reclassified both AQAs and Water Group Leaders (WGLs) to Scientist 4, but only temporarily assigned the WGLs to Acting Geoscientist 4, resulting in higher pay for the WGLs.

The union argued this differential treatment violated the collective agreement by breaching an implied duty of reasonableness and was motivated by anti-union animus against the grievors.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that under the Weber doctrine, it lacked jurisdiction to review the exercise of management rights for reasonableness unless the action impacted an express or implied right under the collective agreement, which was not established here.

Furthermore, the Board found no evidence that the employer's decision was tainted by anti-union animus, concluding it was driven by legitimate business concerns regarding the recruitment and retention of water scientists.

In an interim decision, the Grievance Settlement Board directed the employer to provide calculations for the grievor's potential monetary loss based on a specified formula for a lost interview opportunity.

The Board also granted the union's request to adjourn several hearing dates due to newly retained counsel's scheduling conflicts, despite the employer's objections regarding delay.

Finally, the Board agreed to the parties' request to render a full and final decision on the three grievances already heard before proceeding with the remaining evidence.

The union filed multiple grievances alleging the grievor was improperly denied interviews for Tax Auditor positions and was discriminated against based on age.

The Grievance Settlement Board reviewed the screening criteria and scoring for the competitions, finding that the employer reasonably assessed the grievor's lack of relevant auditing experience compared to other candidates.

The Board found no evidence of age discrimination and dismissed the grievances related to the heard competitions.

In a grievance alleging the Ministry inappropriately disclosed employees' names and addresses to an inmate and failed to provide legal representation, the Grievance Settlement Board previously ordered the Ministry to produce documents.

A law firm holding some documents refused production, claiming privilege.

The Board directed Ministry counsel to attend the law firm, review the documents, and prepare a list of arguably relevant documents for which privilege is claimed, to be provided to the union prior to the next hearing date.

The union filed a grievance alleging the grievor was improperly denied a negotiated wage increase for his home position while he was on an acting assignment outside the bargaining unit.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, following established jurisprudence that wage rates are for work performed in a classification.

Because the grievor was not performing work in his home classification during the acting assignment, his pay was properly tied to the acting position.

The grievor, a casual customer service representative, was discharged for innocent absenteeism after being off work for over two years due to an injury and subsequently failing to attend scheduled modified shifts.

The union grieved the discharge.

The arbitrator found that while the grievor's past absences were excessive, the employer failed to warn her that continued absence would jeopardize her employment status.

Without such a warning, the employer could not reasonably conclude that her attendance would not improve in the future.

The grievance was allowed, and the grievor's status as a casual employee was reinstated.

The union filed a group grievance on behalf of seasonal fire program staff, arguing they were entitled to a shift premium for hours worked between 5:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on their regular days off (RDO).

The employer contended that shift premiums only applied to regularly scheduled shifts, not work performed on an RDO.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that the collective agreement did not restrict the term 'shift' to regularly scheduled shifts for the purpose of shift premiums.

The Board concluded that seasonal fire program staff whose normal hours fall outside 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. are entitled to the shift premium for hours worked on an RDO.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued procedural directions for the hearing of seven related grievances, six of which concerned a job competition and one concerning accommodation of a disability.

The Board ordered the employer to produce competition files and directed both parties to exchange written particulars of their allegations of fact and copies of documents they intend to rely upon, setting specific deadlines for compliance.

The union grieved the dismissal of an employee, alleging unjust dismissal tainted by human rights violations.

The grievor had also filed a complaint with the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

The union requested that the arbitration be deferred pending the Commission's hearing, while the employer argued the arbitration should proceed.

The Vice-Chair held that the Grievance Settlement Board has concurrent jurisdiction to interpret and apply the Human Rights Code alongside the Commission.

Because the Commission had not yet scheduled a hearing, the Vice-Chair declined to defer the matter and directed that the arbitration proceed in the ordinary course.

The grievor, a nine-year employee of the LCBO, was terminated for accumulating Air Miles reward points on customer purchases to her own personal card on approximately 240 occasions over six months.

The union grieved the dismissal, arguing the grievor did not realize the seriousness of her actions and that the penalty should be mitigated.

The Grievance Settlement Board applied the CBC mitigation factors and the McKinley proportionality test, finding that the grievor's actions were premeditated, surreptitious, and repetitious.

The Board concluded that the employment relationship was irreparably broken and upheld the dismissal.