OGSB 2010

Four grievances were filed by union members after they were not selected for an interview for a Storekeeper/Driver position.

The grievors alleged improper screening, inconsistent application of criteria, and bias.

The Grievance Settlement Board reviewed the screening process, which involved two separate screenings by Northern Recruitment and management, and found no evidence of bias or a violation of the collective agreement.

The grievances were dismissed.

The Union filed a grievance alleging that the Employer compromised the integrity of the bargaining unit by allowing outside contractors (Toledo-Mettler staff) to direct commercial vehicles through weigh scales during maintenance and testing.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the contractors were performing maintenance and testing rather than the enforcement duties normally performed by Transportation Enforcement Officers.

The Board also concluded that the volume of work performed by the contractors was de minimis.

The grievor, a Maintenance Welder, received a one-day suspension for submitting purchase requests for equipment deemed inappropriate for his role, including rain suits, a water filtration system, and vehicle tail-lights.

The employer alleged the items were for personal use.

The grievor denied the allegations, stating he only made requisitions which the employer could reject.

The arbitrator found the one-day suspension too harsh but noted the grievor ought to have known the constraints on his ability to requisition equipment.

The suspension was rescinded and replaced with a verbal warning.

The union filed grievances regarding the system for the allocation of post assignments.

Pursuant to an Expedited Mediation-Arbitration Protocol, the parties provided submissions to the Vice-Chair.

The Vice-Chair directed that the matter be referred to the Local Employee Relations Committee (LERC) for discussion, after which the grievances would be deemed resolved.

The Employer raised a preliminary objection to the Board's jurisdiction to hear a group grievance filed by Employment Standard Officers regarding a new workload quota.

The Employer argued the grievance alleged a free-standing violation of management rights, over which the Board lacks jurisdiction, and that the Union's subsequent reliance on health and safety and discipline provisions constituted an improper expansion of the grievance.

The Board agreed, finding that even on a liberal reading, the original written grievance could not be construed to encompass health and safety or discipline claims.

As the Board has no jurisdiction to review a free-standing exercise of management rights for reasonableness, the Employer's preliminary motion was granted and the grievance was dismissed.

The grievor, a Correctional Officer, alleged that the Employer violated the Collective Agreement by failing to schedule him to work on Good Friday, a paid holiday.

The grievance was processed through the Expedited Mediation-Arbitration process.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that there is no entitlement to work on a paid holiday under the terms of the Collective Agreement.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the union's grievance alleging workplace harassment and failure to accommodate was precluded by the settlement of a previous grievance.

The previous grievance had alleged a failure to accommodate based on family status.

The current grievance alleged harassment by a manager, including conduct related to the denial of accommodation requests.

The arbitrator held that the settlement of the previous grievance only precluded claims for remedies arising directly from the failure to accommodate, and did not preclude claims for redress for harassment, even if that harassment occurred in the context of responding to accommodation requests.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued an update on the parties' organizational objectives and the implementation of agreed action plans at the Toronto Jail.

The decision outlines specific timelines and responsibilities for the Employer and the Union to complete various training initiatives, including anti-racism, conflict resolution, and human rights training, as well as policy updates regarding standing orders, dress codes, and workplace discrimination and harassment complaints.

In a grievance arbitration, the union provided medical reports it intended to rely upon.

The employer requested that the physician who prepared the reports be made available for cross-examination and that the physician's clinical notes and relied-upon documents be produced.

The Grievance Settlement Board directed the union to facilitate the physician's attendance and the production of the requested documents if it intended to rely on the reports.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the Union to provide full particulars related to its claims for retrospective relief regarding transcript production within 45 days.

The particulars must include the identity of each individual, dates and times of work performed, and how the Collective Agreement applies to each claim.

The Board also directed the Union to advise the Employer if the Union Dues document does not identify employees' classifications, with a teleconference to be convened for any disclosure disputes.

The Union grieved the Employer's method of calculating overtime entitlement for flexible part-time (FPT) employees who change categories or hold other positions within a calendar year.

The Union argued that hours should be prorated at the time of any category change.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the collective agreement contemplates calculating hours worked at the end of the calendar year based on the employee's category as of December 31st, with no obligation to prorate.

The Union filed grievances regarding the scheduling of Flexible Part-Time (FPT) employees under Appendix 32 of the Collective Agreement.

The parties submitted two questions to the Grievance Settlement Board: whether the Employer must schedule FPT employees before fixed-term employees, and whether the Employer must schedule FPT employees for hours in excess of their minimum annual hours.

The Board found in favour of the Employer on both questions, concluding that the Collective Agreement contains no provisions granting FPT employees a right of first refusal for available work or a right to be scheduled beyond their minimum annual hours.

A correctional officer filed a grievance alleging the employer breached the collective agreement regarding overtime and management performing bargaining unit work.

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

The arbitrator granted the grievance and ordered the employer to pay the grievor 12 hours at the overtime rate.

The parties agreed to refer all outstanding and future grievances regarding the interpretation of Appendix 32 of the Collective Agreement to the Vice-Chair for determination.

To efficiently resolve the large number of grievances, the Vice-Chair ordered a streamlined litigation process where grievances will be presented via statements of fact and submissions, without viva voce evidence unless specifically requested.

Following a mediation session regarding grievances over a use of force investigation, the parties could not agree on whether a memorandum should be posted by the employer.

The union sought to have the memorandum posted to confirm that an allegation of racial motivation was unfounded.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the employer to post the memorandum, finding it would have a healing effect and cause no prejudice to the employer.

The request for compensation was denied.

The union filed a grievance alleging the employer failed to assist the grievor when she faced improper workplace treatment regarding the division of duties between RNs and RPNs, resulting in stress and sick leave.

The matter proceeded under an Expedited Mediation-Arbitration Protocol.

The Vice-Chair determined that the issues involved complex questions of credibility, conflict of evidence, and motivation that could not be adequately resolved through the expedited process.

The matter was referred to Joint File Review for a full hearing where witnesses could testify and be cross-examined.

During an arbitration hearing, an issue arose regarding a summons issued to Rogers, the delivery of requested documents to the employer's counsel, and the employer's failure to produce those records to the union.

The union requested an adjournment.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the employer to provide the union with a copy of the summons, details of any communications with Rogers regarding the summons, and the dates of service and receipt of documents.

The Board also permitted the union to confer with the grievor on this issue only.

The union filed a grievance claiming overtime for a four-hour shift on September 8, 2009.

The employer argued that shifts of four hours or less are exempted from the HPRO protocol.

Following an expedited mediation-arbitration protocol, the Vice-Chair reviewed the submissions and the collective agreement, and dismissed the grievance.

The union filed a grievance claiming overtime for work performed on Labour Day.

The employer argued there was no collective agreement requirement regarding the distribution of premium holiday work.

Following an expedited mediation-arbitration protocol, the Vice-Chair reviewed the submissions and the collective agreement, and dismissed the grievance.

The union filed a grievance claiming the grievor was improperly denied a four-hour overtime shift on August 31, 2009, which was given to another employee.

The employer argued that shifts of four hours or less were exempted from the HPRO protocol.

Following an expedited mediation-arbitration process, the Vice-Chair dismissed the grievance, finding no violation of the collective agreement.