OGSB 2010

The union filed two grievances on behalf of the grievor following a workplace incident where the grievor was treated inappropriately.

The matter proceeded through the Expedited Mediation-Arbitration process.

The Vice-Chair found that while the grievor was adversely affected by the inappropriate treatment, the employer took appropriate and timely action following the incident.

The grievances were dismissed.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued an order directing the implementation of a Memorandum of Settlement between the union and the employer.

The order set out a timeline and process for the parties to compile, exchange, and consolidate a list of names and addresses of employees who worked at the Mimico Correctional Centre between 1980 and 2005, in order to execute and send out required letters.

The grievor, a warehouse employee with eight years of service, was caught on video surveillance concealing a bottle of liquor in his clothing.

Management confronted him in a boardroom, retrieved the stolen product, and then allowed him to speak with his union representative.

The union grieved the discharge, arguing that the employer violated Article 26.3 of the collective agreement by not providing union representation prior to the confrontation, and alternatively, that the penalty of discharge should be mitigated due to the grievor's drug addiction.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the brief interaction to secure the stolen property did not constitute a disciplinary meeting under Article 26.3.

Furthermore, the Board upheld the discharge, concluding that the grievor failed to provide sufficient medical evidence of his addiction or rehabilitation to mitigate the penalty for theft.

The grievor, a correctional officer, grieved that her continuous service date had been calculated incorrectly.

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

The Vice-Chair denied the grievance.

The grievor, a correctional officer, alleged he was wrongly denied an overtime opportunity.

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

The Vice-Chair denied the grievance, finding no violation of the collective agreement.

The grievor, a correctional officer, took a leave of absence to work for another ministry.

She was subsequently required to resign from her correctional officer position to continue her new unclassified role.

Two weeks after her resignation, buy-out packages were offered to correctional officers.

The grievor alleged she should have been granted a leave of absence without pay from her new role to remain eligible for the buy-out package.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding no violation of the collective agreement.

The union alleged the employer breached Minutes of Settlement (MOS) by failing to notify insurers of the grievor's reinstatement, and filed two additional grievances alleging discriminatory surplus/redeployment and failure to protect confidential medical information.

The arbitrator found no breach of the MOS, as some benefits were reimbursed, indicating insurers were notified.

The discrimination grievance was dismissed for lack of evidence, as the grievor's former position was eliminated due to corporate restructuring and she was properly redeployed within the bargaining unit.

The employer's preliminary objection to the medical information grievance was dismissed as a technical breach.

On the merits, the arbitrator found the employer's medical report was inadequately sealed and directed the employer to follow best practices for securing health information, but declined to award damages.

The Employer requested an adjournment of the grievance hearing pending the outcome of a judicial review of a related Grievance Settlement Board decision (the Monk decision) regarding the Board's jurisdiction to award damages for a workplace injury under the health and safety provision of the collective agreement.

The Union opposed the adjournment, arguing it would cause considerable delay and prejudice.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the Employer's request, finding that the balancing of interests favoured proceeding with the hearing, as an adjournment would result in significant delay and the Union was seeking additional remedies not affected by the pending judicial review.

The union filed a grievance alleging that the grievor's manager subjected him to a pattern of harassment and discrimination on the basis of disability.

At the conclusion of the union's case, the employer brought a motion for non-suit.

The Grievance Settlement Board applied the test for non-suit motions, assuming the union's evidence to be true and drawing all reasonable inferences in its favour.

The Board found that the evidence, which primarily consisted of the grievor's subjective belief that his manager's actions were malicious and his disagreement with her management style and interpretation of procedures, was insufficient to establish a prima facie case of harassment or discrimination.

The motion for non-suit was granted and the grievance was dismissed.

The union grieved that the employer violated the collective agreement by capping termination pay for employees whose work was transferred to the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA).

The employer argued that employees who accepted job offers with the CRA had voluntarily resigned and were therefore only entitled to termination pay accrued up to December 31, 2008.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the employer had severed the employment relationship by transferring the work, and the employees' choice to accept a job with the CRA was a 'deemed resignation' rather than a 'voluntary resignation'.

The grievance was granted, entitling the transferred employees to full termination pay.

The grievor, a former Correctional Officer, filed a grievance alleging he was improperly denied relocation expenses when his workplace closed, leading him to take an exit package.

He sought compensation or a new position after learning other employees received relocation expenses.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the grievor had voluntarily accepted the exit package.

The grievor, a Human Rights Investigator, requested a one-year unpaid leave of absence to accept a temporary position at Toyota, citing mental health issues related to his current workplace.

When the Employer did not provide a decision by his requested start date, the grievor submitted a conditional resignation, stating he would resign if the leave was denied.

The Employer subsequently denied the leave request and accepted the resignation.

The Union grieved, arguing the resignation was not voluntary and that the Employer failed in its duty to accommodate the grievor's disability.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the grievor had a clear subjective intent to resign, confirmed by his objective conduct of starting work at Toyota.

The Board also held that the Employer fulfilled its duty to accommodate by seeking medical information and determining the grievor could return to work with a reduced caseload, and that the denial of the leave request was reasonable.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued a follow-up decision regarding the implementation of systemic remedies at the Toronto Jail.

The Vice-Chair reviewed the progress of various action plans, including the issuance of Standing Orders, peer coaching, dress code enforcement, staffing analysis, performance development plans, and workplace discrimination and harassment training.

Several objectives were deemed accomplished, while others remain subject to ongoing monitoring and future meetings between the union and the employer.

The union filed multiple grievances regarding the implementation of the HPRO computerized overtime distribution system, alleging inadequate training and computer access.

Employees engaged in a three-month boycott of the system, during which the employer continued to use it to assign overtime to non-boycotting employees.

The arbitrator found that the employer provided adequate training and computer access, and that any inequity in overtime distribution was caused by the employees' decision to boycott the jointly negotiated system.

The grievances were dismissed.

Three Youth Services Officers filed grievances alleging that the Employer failed to properly compensate them on their classified status retroactive to July 31, 2003, following a rollover from unclassified to classified status.

The grievances were referred to the Transition Table for disposition.

After considering the facts and submissions, the Vice-Chair found no violation of the Collective Agreement and dismissed the grievances.

The parties requested a nonprecedential and nonbinding decision without reasons.

The Grievance Settlement Board considered the stipulated facts, case law, and arguments of the parties, and dismissed the grievance.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the union's request for a 'post and fill' remedy regarding transcription work allegedly performed by non-employees.

The employer argued the remedy was barred by res judicata, issue estoppel, or abuse of process, relying on a prior Board decision involving the same parties where a similar remedial request was rejected.

The Board dismissed the motion, finding that the prior decision rejected the remedy because it was raised late in the proceedings, not because it was inherently improper.

The Board concluded there was no jurisdictional obstacle to considering the remedy if the grievance succeeded.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of a correctional officer claiming entitlement to travel time and mileage for work performed at a correctional complex following a period of facility restructuring and transition.

The matter proceeded to arbitration under a specialized transition dispute resolution process established by the parties.

After hearing the facts and submissions, the arbitrator dismissed the grievance.

In an ongoing transition process involving the restructuring of provincial correctional institutions, the Grievance Settlement Board addressed the Union's failure to provide particulars for certain grievances.

Noting the necessity of resolving transition disputes in a timely fashion and avoiding a backlog, the Vice-Chair ordered the Union to provide particulars regarding the grievances listed in Appendix A to the Employer within sixty days.

The Union grieved the Employer's unilateral cessation of 'pay in lieu' (PIL) of benefits payments to student employees, a practice that had existed for over 20 years.

The Union argued that PIL was a 'term and condition of employment specifically applicable to students' under Article 33.3 of the collective agreement.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that the collective agreement explicitly limited the provisions applicable to students and did not include PIL payments.

Applying the principle of expressio unius est exclusio alterius, the Board found that the parties specifically included PIL for other fixed-term employees but excluded it for students.

The grievance on this interpretive issue was dismissed, with remaining issues to be set for hearing.