OGSB 2010

The union filed a grievance alleging workplace harassment.

The parties agreed to an Expedited Mediation-Arbitration Protocol.

Following a review of the submissions and the collective agreement, the Vice-Chair dismissed the grievance.

The union filed a grievance regarding the proper payment of overtime to certain correctional officers.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued a procedural order directing the parties to exchange all documents relating to the distribution of overtime to unclassified/fixed term employees under the provincial overtime protocol by specified dates.

The Union requested disclosure of documents and particulars relating to the MOL Interim Protocol and McNeil disclosure.

The Employer consented to producing certain documents by October 26, 2010, subject to solicitor-client privilege concerns, and undertook to seek instructions on the remaining requests.

The Board ordered the Employer to advise the Union of its position by October 26, 2010, with a conference call to be convened if the parties cannot resolve the remaining issues.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the employee's 2003 grievance, arguing it had been abandoned due to a lack of action until May 2008.

The union argued the delay was due to the grievor receiving LTD and being too ill to proceed, and that the employer had not shown prejudice.

The Vice-Chair denied the motion, finding that while the delay was considerable, the medical evidence explained it and the employer provided no evidence of actual prejudice, making it equitable to allow a hearing on the merits.

The parties each sought the production of documents from one another that had already been produced in a separate proceeding before the Grievance Settlement Board.

The prior production was subject to an implied undertaking that the documents only be used for the purposes of that case.

As neither party objected to the request, the Vice-Chair directed the production of the documents, effectively allowing the prior production to be used for the purposes of the instant case.

The union filed a grievance alleging that the grievor's roll-over to permanent status should be backdated due to the employer's failure to properly staff the jail and a violation of the RPM agreement.

The employer argued that the collective agreement did not require specific staffing on specific shifts and that staffing was consistent with a prior agreement with the Ministry of Labour and the OLRB.

Following an expedited mediation-arbitration protocol, the Vice-Chair dismissed the grievance.

The union filed a grievance relating to discrimination and health and safety.

The parties agreed to an Expedited Mediation-Arbitration Protocol.

After reviewing the submissions of the parties and the collective agreement, the Vice-Chair dismissed the grievance.

During a grievance arbitration regarding the termination of a bus driver for texting while driving, the Union objected to the admission of the grievor's cell phone records.

The Employer had obtained the records from Rogers via a subpoena issued by the Board, but had excused the Rogers representative from attending the hearing.

The Union argued this was litigation by ambush, a violation of PIPEDA, and an abuse of process.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the objections, finding that the records were arguably relevant, obtained under a valid subpoena (which satisfies PIPEDA exceptions), and that the procedure used did not constitute an abuse of process.

The Grievance Settlement Board held a hearing to determine the employer's compliance with a previous decision.

The Vice-Chair found the employer to be in substantial compliance but ordered the crediting of 4 vacation days and 1.5 short-term sick plan days to the grievor.

The grievor was also given a deadline to identify specific errors in the calculation of a retroactive lump sum payment, and directed to file a fresh grievance for any new accommodation issues.

The union filed two grievances on behalf of the grievor alleging the employer failed to provide a safe work environment.

The first grievance challenged the air quality and ventilation system, while the second alleged the grievor was threatened by a supervisor, resulting in a workplace absence for which he sought a sick leave top-up.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed both grievances in an expedited mediation-arbitration process.

The Board found the employer was conducting ongoing air quality testing and directed the grievor to the local Health and Safety Committee.

The Board also found insufficient evidence that the supervisor threatened the grievor.

The Employer brought a motion to strike certain claims from the Union's particulars in a harassment and unjust dismissal grievance.

The Employer argued that the claims pertained to matters that had been previously grieved and resolved through Memorandums of Settlement.

The Union sought to introduce the evidence to establish a pattern of harassment and bad faith by the Employer.

The Grievance Settlement Board granted the motion to strike, holding that evidence of fully and finally resolved matters is generally inadmissible to establish a pattern of harassment, absent exceptional circumstances akin to bad faith in the settlement process.

The Union was permitted to lead evidence that the prior settlements were breached, as well as evidence of matters not covered by the settlements.

A correctional officer grieved a ten-day suspension imposed for various policy violations, including failing to declare a conflict and attempting to deliver contraband to an inmate.

The matter proceeded through an expedited mediation-arbitration process.

The arbitrator found that the core allegations were substantiated and noted the grievor's lack of remorse, but concluded that a ten-day suspension was too harsh under the circumstances.

The grievance was allowed in part, and the suspension was reduced to six days.

The union filed a grievance objecting to the employer's practices regarding the hiring of retired correctional officers.

The matter proceeded under an Expedited Mediation-Arbitration Protocol.

The Vice-Chair reviewed the submissions and the collective agreement, concluding that there was no breach of the collective agreement.

The grievance was dismissed.

The union requested a change of venue for the arbitration hearing from Toronto to St. Catharines/Thorold, citing the grievor's medical condition that allegedly restricted his travel.

The employer opposed the request, arguing the medical evidence only restricted the grievor from driving, not from taking public transit.

The Grievance Settlement Board applied a balance of convenience test, noting that denying the venue change could effectively deny the grievor a hearing if his medical claims were true.

The Board ordered the first day of the hearing to be held in St. Catharines or Thorold, with the venue for any subsequent days to be determined later.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued a brief decision noting the parties' agreement that there is an obligation to consider the accommodation needs of surplus employees in the redeployment process.

The parties agreed to refer the implementation of this obligation to the Central Employee Relations Committee (CERC) and/or its subcommittees to be dealt with on a substantive basis within 18 months.

The union filed a grievance alleging that the employer improperly delayed the grievor's entry into the CET program, which caused the grievor to needlessly cancel university classes and lose paid tuition.

The matter proceeded under an Expedited Mediation-Arbitration Protocol.

After reviewing the submissions and the collective agreement, the Vice-Chair dismissed the grievance.

The union filed grievances alleging that the grievor was improperly bypassed for two 12-hour shifts.

The employer argued that the shifts were assigned to unclassified employees who had not yet attained forty hours in the respective weeks, and that such assignments were not governed by the collective agreement or the HPRO protocol.

The arbitrator, applying an Expedited Mediation-Arbitration Protocol, dismissed the grievances.

The Employer raised a preliminary objection regarding the Board's jurisdiction to hear six grievances filed by the grievor, arguing they were referred to arbitration beyond the mandatory time limits in the Collective Agreement.

The Union argued the delay was caused by the Employer's failure to hold a Stage Two meeting, and thus the time limits for referral had not been triggered or should be extended.

The Board held that the lack of a Stage Two meeting meant there was no settlement, and the Union was required to refer the matter to arbitration within the specified time limit after the deadline for the Employer's decision had passed.

As the referral was more than two months late, the Board lacked jurisdiction to hear the six grievances.

A correctional officer filed a grievance alleging that the employer breached Article 2 of the collective agreement.

The parties referred the grievance to mediation/arbitration under Article 22.16 of the collective agreement.

Following an expedited hearing, the Vice-Chair found no violation of the collective agreement and dismissed the grievance without written reasons.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued a procedural direction ordering the union to provide the employer with full particulars in support of its claim within 30 days.