OGSB 2010

The union referred several grievances concerning employee discipline to mediation/arbitration in accordance with the collective agreement and the Corrections Med/Arb Protocol.

At the outset of the hearing, the parties agreed to have the Vice-Chair exercise jurisdiction to decide the matter and requested a decision without reasons.

The Vice-Chair ordered the parties to comply with a confidential order attached as an appendix to the decision.

The Union filed multiple grievances regarding the Attendance Support and Management Pilot Program.

The parties agreed to an expedited process resulting in a bottom-line decision without reasons.

The Vice-Chair ordered the Employer to exercise reasonable discretion for non-culpable absenteeism, consider Human Rights Code implications, preclude WSIB absences at Level 4, and consider suspending the program during a declared pandemic.

The parties were ordered to negotiate a dispute resolution process, and all identified grievances were dismissed.

The grievor, a Correctional Officer, alleged the Employer violated the overtime protocol by not offering her a four-hour overtime shift.

The Employer had instead assigned an eight-hour overtime shift to another officer who had indicated availability for the longer shift.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that the Employer has the right to determine the length and timing of a shift for which overtime is needed, and its actions in assigning the eight-hour shift were appropriate.

The grievor, a Correctional Officer, filed a grievance alleging that the Employer was obliged to offer her overtime work when a shift became open.

The Employer argued it had the right to determine whether to assign work and decided not to hire anyone on overtime.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the overtime protocol only applies once the decision has been made to hire overtime, and the Employer was within its rights to decide not to fill the shift.

AMAPCEO sought interim relief to prevent the Ministry of Revenue from conducting personnel screening checks on approximately 214 members pending the resolution of a grievance.

The screening checks were initiated to comply with Canada Revenue Agency requirements for accessing taxpayer information.

The Grievance Settlement Board granted the interim order, finding that AMAPCEO raised an arguable case and that the balance of convenience favoured protecting the employees' privacy interests, which could not be effectively remedied retroactively, over the Employer's implementation timeline.

The union filed a grievance alleging that the employer contravened the collective agreement by paying overtime to unclassified hosts under article 31.A.3.1(d) rather than sub-article (c).

The issue was whether the unclassified hosts had 'regularly scheduled work days'.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that while schedules were posted in advance, the actual hours worked varied significantly due to unpredictable operational needs, such as after-hours events and extended opening hours.

Consequently, the employees did not work regularly scheduled days on an ongoing and consistent basis.

The grievance was dismissed, affirming the employer's application of sub-article (d).

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the Union to provide particulars to the Employer regarding two grievances filed by the grievor.

The particulars must include the who, what, when, and where of the facts relied upon, relevant medical reports, alleged collective agreement and legislative violations, and the remedies sought.

The union grieved that the employer breached the collective agreement by assigning the grievor new duties related to fleet and facilities maintenance without paying him at a higher classification rate.

The employer argued the grievance was an inarbitrable classification dispute.

The union characterized it as a breach of the temporary assignment provisions.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that the assignment of new duties was not temporary and did not constitute a temporary assignment to another position.

The grievor sought severance pay under the Employment Standards Act and benefits under a Memorandum of Agreement following the closure of the Rideau Regional Centre.

The grievor held an unclassified on-call contract at the closed facility while simultaneously holding a separate part-time classified position with another ministry.

The arbitrator held that the grievor was not entitled to benefits under the Memorandum of Agreement because she did not exit the Ontario Public Service.

However, resolving an ambiguity in the Employment Standards Act, the arbitrator found the grievor was entitled to severance pay for the loss of the unclassified position, subject to potential regulatory exemptions.

In a grievance arbitration regarding a job competition, the Grievance Settlement Board ordered the Employer to provide full disclosure of the successful applicants' resumes, applications, and answer sheets with marking/scores.

The Union was ordered to provide full particulars of the facts and allegations it will rely on at arbitration upon receipt of the disclosure.

The Employer was also directed to advise the Union of any preliminary objections at least two weeks prior to the hearing.

The parties appeared before the Grievance Settlement Board for an interpretation of a memorandum of settlement.

The employer acknowledged that a required payment had taken too long to process.

The Vice-Chair ordered that the payment be made forthwith with interest.

In a grievance arbitration, the Grievance Settlement Board issued a production order requiring the parties to attempt to identify anonymized examples of relevant documents from training materials.

If unable to do so, the Employer was ordered to identify and disclose anonymized examples from client files, including database screen shots, to be maintained securely to prevent unauthorized disclosure.

The grievor, a Correctional Officer, alleged that the Employer violated the HPRO by failing to offer him an overtime shift for which he was available.

The Employer provided documentation indicating that the shift was offered and refused by the grievor.

The arbitrator accepted the veracity of the Employer's documentation and denied the grievance.

The grievor, an unclassified Correctional Officer, alleged that she was promised forty hours of work per week during her training, and that the failure to provide these hours violated the Collective Agreement.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the Collective Agreement contained no such guarantee for unclassified employees.

Furthermore, a comment made by an individual without authority during training was insufficient to create such a right.

The grievance was denied.

The grievor, a correctional officer, filed a grievance claiming entitlement to 4 hours of travel time.

The employer denied the claim, asserting no violation of the collective agreement.

The matter proceeded to an expedited mediation/arbitration hearing under Article 22.16 of the collective agreement.

The arbitrator denied the grievance without written reasons, in accordance with the parties' policy for expedited hearings.

A correctional officer grieved that the employer treated him unfairly in balancing his hours when he transitioned from the unclassified to the classified service.

The matter was referred to mediation/arbitration under the collective agreement.

The Grievance Settlement Board denied the grievance without written reasons, in accordance with the parties' policy for expedited hearings.

The grievor, a correctional officer, alleged that the employer wrongly denied him overtime in violation of the collective agreement.

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

The Grievance Settlement Board denied the grievance.

The Union brought a grievance regarding the termination of the grievor's employment.

On consent of the parties, the Grievance Settlement Board ordered the Employer to provide the Union with written particulars of the facts and documents it intends to rely upon to support its case for just cause dismissal.

The Board directed that failure to comply with the order may result in the Employer being precluded from adducing evidence on matters not particularized.

The union grieved a ten-day suspension and final warning imposed on the grievor for acting in an aggressive and intimidating manner towards a co-worker.

The employer relied on the grievor's prior disciplinary record for similar conduct.

The parties requested a 'without precedent' decision with no reasons.

The arbitrator allowed the grievance in part, reducing the penalty to a five-day suspension and ordering the employer to compensate the grievor for five days' pay.

The union filed grievances regarding the employer's requirement for medical certificates for absences over a few days in August 2009.

The parties participated in an expedited mediation-arbitration process.

The arbitrator ordered the employer to pay sick leave to employees who did not provide a note and were denied sick leave pay.

For employees who provided a note and incurred expenses, the employer was ordered to pay a net amount of $125 each.