OGSB 2009

The union sought interim relief to maintain a correctional officer's paid leave of absence pending the determination of his grievance regarding a poisoned work environment.

The grievor had been on paid leave for 17 months after receiving racially-motivated hate mail.

The employer offered to accommodate the grievor at six other correctional institutions, but the grievor refused, seeking to remain on paid leave.

The Board assumed jurisdiction to grant interim relief but dismissed the application, finding that the employer's offer of alternative work locations was a reasonable accommodation and the balance of harm did not favour allowing the grievor to remain off work with pay.

The grievor, a bus driver, was discharged after a passenger complained about a comment she made to other passengers.

The employer alleged the comment was offensive and breached a 'Conditions of Continued Employment' agreement from a previous discipline.

The arbitrator found that, in context, the grievor's comment was an attempt to diffuse a situation after another passenger made a degrading remark about an elderly passenger's English skills.

The arbitrator concluded the grievor did not engage in culpable conduct, allowed the grievance, and ordered reinstatement with full compensation.

The union filed a grievance claiming that a water bomber pilot was entitled to call back pay under the collective agreement when he was required to work prior to his scheduled start time.

The employer argued that the specific terms of the CL-415 Pilot/Co-Pilot Agreement, which amended the collective agreement, disentitled pilots to call back pay.

The arbitrator found that the plain language of the Pilot Agreement provided that all hours worked on a regular workday, including those before the normal start time, were to be accumulated at straight time and credited towards the annual work requirement.

The grievance was dismissed.

During a conference call, the Union requested an adjournment sine die of the upcoming hearing date.

The Employer opposed the request.

The Vice-Chair granted the adjournment but declined to adjourn the matter sine die, instead rescheduling the hearing to a specific date, with reasons to follow.

The Union requested an adjournment sine die of a scheduled hearing date because it reasonably believed the grievor, who suffers from PTSD, would behave disruptively, making it impossible to conduct the hearing.

The Employer opposed the adjournment, arguing the proceeding had gone on too long.

The Grievance Settlement Board granted the adjournment, noting the grievor's recent extreme conduct and the likelihood of its repetition.

However, the Board declined to adjourn the matter sine die, instead rescheduling it to a specific date to ensure the proceeding is not left in limbo indefinitely.

In a grievance concerning the termination of a former correctional officer, the union sought a production order for medical documentation relating to a specific incident.

The Grievance Settlement Board determined that the union's request was appropriate and directed the employer to provide any medical documentation under its care and control relating to the incident.

The union filed 68 grievances on behalf of the grievor regarding a job competition for a temporary assignment as a probation and parole officer.

The union alleged the employer violated the collective agreement because the grievor's qualifications were relatively equal to the successful candidate, and that the employer discriminated and acted in bad faith during the assessment.

The arbitrator found no violation of the collective agreement, no evidence of discrimination or bad faith, and dismissed the grievances.

The union filed grievances on behalf of an employee alleging that the employer violated the collective agreement by denying her work on various statutory holidays.

The matter proceeded through an expedited mediation-arbitration process.

The arbitrator found no provision in the collective agreement or any local agreement that had been violated regarding the scheduling of overtime for record clerks.

The grievances were dismissed.

The grievor, a Correctional Officer, filed a grievance regarding a workplace conflict with a fellow officer.

The matter proceeded through an expedited mediation-arbitration process.

The Vice-Chair ordered the employer to retain an external mediator to resolve the conflict, noting the process was not punitive and would not be noted in either officer's file.

In an expedited mediation-arbitration process, several grievances were filed by correctional officers alleging a poisoned work environment, bullying, and harassment by co-workers.

The Vice-Chair found a clear level of dysfunction in the department, noting that some grievors were also named as aggressors by others.

The Employer was ordered to retain an external mediator to conduct a non-punitive mediation process involving the grievors and regular staff in the department.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued a supplementary decision to update its previous decisions regarding systemic issues at the Toronto Jail.

The Board amended action plans and objectives, including scheduling Coordinating Committee meetings, clarifying staff rights to report wrongdoing under the Public Service of Ontario Act, 2006, and addressing racism and discrimination under the Human Rights Code.

The Vice-Chair remained seized with respect to the interpretation or implementation of the decision.

The grievor, a social worker, filed three grievances.

Two alleged that the employer failed to properly recognize her seniority in work assignments, which were dismissed as no violation of the collective agreement was established.

The third grievance alleged a poisoned work environment stemming from a conflict with a co-worker.

Noting that a previous internal mediation attempt had failed and exacerbated the situation, the arbitrator ordered the employer to retain an external mediator to address the workplace conflict.

The Union requested an adjournment of the hearing scheduled for August 21, 2009, sine die.

The Employer opposed the adjournment and argued the matter should be completed by written submissions.

The Vice-Chair granted the adjournment but not on a sine die basis, rescheduling the hearing to November 13, 2009.

The union filed a grievance alleging that the employer violated Appendix COR5 of the collective agreement by failing to create and fill any Probation Officer 3 (PO3) positions.

The employer argued that it had complied with COR5 by establishing the PO3 classification and updating class standards, and that it was not required to actually populate the classification.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that the parties' agreement to create a new classification implied and necessitated the creation and filling of at least some positions within it.

The employer's failure to create and fill a single PO3 position was found to be a violation of COR5.

The union filed a grievance alleging the employer failed to provide a healthy and safe workplace, contributing to the grievor's alcohol abuse and depression.

The employer raised preliminary objections that the grievance was untimely and barred by prior settlements of similar grievances.

The union argued that the time limits should be extended under s. 48(16) of the Labour Relations Act and the prior settlements reopened because the grievor lacked the mental capacity to appreciate the connection between the workplace stressors and his illness at the time.

The Vice-Chair held that there was insufficient evidence to rule on the preliminary objections and directed that further medical evidence and submissions be heard before determining arbitrability.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to exclude evidence of events from 2005 that were the subject of previous grievances settled by a Memorandum of Settlement in 2006.

The union sought to adduce the evidence to show a pattern of harassment and provide context for current grievances alleging breaches of the settlement and reprisal.

The Grievance Settlement Board granted the employer's motion, holding that the principle of the sanctity of settlements prevents the admission of evidence underlying settled grievances absent special circumstances, which were not present here.

The union filed grievances on behalf of unclassified General Duty Officers claiming they should be paid at the higher Youth Worker rate pursuant to the collective agreement's equivalent civil service classification provision.

The employer raised a preliminary objection, arguing the grievances were disguised classification grievances outside the Board's jurisdiction.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the objection, finding that the grievances properly sought to enforce a specific wage provision for unclassified employees and did not require the Board to amend or create a classification system.

The Union sought an order preventing the Employer from unilaterally implementing changes to court reporting and transcript production while the Grievance Settlement Board remained seized with remedial issues from a prior decision.

The prior decision found that transcript preparation was bargaining unit work.

The Employer argued it had management rights to implement its plan and the Union could challenge it at the remedial hearing.

The Vice-Chair held that allowing unilateral implementation would circumvent the ongoing hearing process and undermine the Board's integrity.

The Employer was ordered to cease and desist implementation pending the resolution of the remedial issues.

The union filed a grievance alleging that the employer violated the collective agreement when a flexible part-time employee incurred an hours deficit for a week after taking a sick day.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the employer's scheduling obligation under the collective agreement is to make reasonable efforts to ensure employees are scheduled to work their minimum annual hours over the course of a calendar year, not on a weekly basis.

As there was no evidence that the employer failed to meet this annual obligation, the grievance was dismissed.

The union grieved the employer's practice of paying flexible part-time employees at straight time for paid leave hours (vacation, statutory holidays, etc.) taken after the employee had accrued 110% of their minimum annual hours.

The union argued that under Appendix 32 of the collective agreement, these leave hours should be considered 'excess hours' and paid at the overtime rate.

The employer contended that only hours actually worked counted as overage hours for overtime purposes.

The Grievance Settlement Board allowed the grievances, finding that 'hours worked' in the parties' agreements was shorthand that included paid leave hours, and directed the employer to pay the overtime premium for the leave hours in question.