OGSB 2008

The Union brought motions for the production of the grievor's human rights complaint and for a six-month adjournment because the grievor had lost confidence in the system.

The Employer brought a motion to dismiss the remaining grievances as abandoned.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the Employer to produce the human rights complaint, finding it relevant.

The Board denied the adjournment request, noting that the grievor's lack of faith in the process was not a valid reason.

The Board deferred its decision on the Employer's motion to dismiss until the next hearing date, stating that the remaining grievances would be dismissed as abandoned if the grievor failed to attend and provide an undertaking to participate.

The union grieved the employer's blanket requirement that all employees who claimed sick leave over the Thanksgiving weekend produce a medical certificate.

The union argued this violated article 44.10 of the collective agreement, which requires an individual determination of suspected abuse.

The employer argued it had the right to request certificates in the face of suspected concerted activity.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that while the employer may seek medical certificates on a blanket basis in the face of concerted activity, it failed to meet its evidentiary burden to prove such activity occurred in this case.

The grievances were allowed.

The Grievance Settlement Board held a teleconference to consider an adjournment of a scheduled hearing.

The grievor had filed a complaint with the Ontario Human Rights Commission that partially overlapped with the issues before the Board.

The Board ordered the hearing scheduled for January 21, 2008, adjourned pending the imminent release of a ruling from the Commission regarding a potential stay of its proceedings.

The grievor, a casual employee, filed a grievance regarding a job posting for a Product Consultant position.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the Board lacked jurisdiction because article 31.4(b) of the collective agreement only applies to entry-level positions, and Product Consultant is not an entry-level position.

The union argued that 'entry level' referred to the wage step, not the position, and alternatively, that the employer was estopped from relying on its strict rights due to past practice.

The Board found that under the strict terms of the collective agreement, the Product Consultant position was not an entry-level position.

However, the Board held that the employer was estopped from relying on its strict rights because it had consistently permitted casual employees to compete for Product Consultant positions in the past, and the union had relied on this representation to its detriment by not raising the issue in collective bargaining.

The grievance was found to be arbitrable.

The Union filed grievances on behalf of Transportation Enforcement Officers 2 at the Essex South Truck Inspection Station, claiming they were entitled to overtime for work performed by a special Truck Response Unit (TRU) brought in from outside the district.

The TRU members worked more than 7.25 hours per day but did not claim overtime, as they were operating under their own Compressed Work Week Agreements (CWWAs) which allowed for flexible scheduling up to 362.5 hours over a 10-week period.

The Union argued the CWWAs did not follow the TRU members to the new geographic location and that the excess daily hours constituted overtime that should have been distributed equitably to the local officers.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievances, finding that the CWWAs did follow the employees to the new location, no overtime was actually worked or authorized, and the Employer had valid operational reasons for assigning the work to the out-of-town officers without incurring overtime costs.

The union filed grievances on behalf of correctional officers claiming they were improperly placed at the first step of the pay range upon being rehired, unlike other rehired officers.

Following a prior decision confirming jurisdiction, the Grievance Settlement Board held a conference call to discuss procedural issues.

The Vice-Chair directed the union to provide written statements detailing each grievor's employment history and the basis for their claim.

The employer was directed to respond with reasons for the placement and information regarding the comparator group.

The scheduled hearing dates were adjourned to May 2008.