OGSB 2010

The union filed grievances alleging that the employer's use of a male CET officer during an activation, contrary to its stated policy, caused harm to male employees who had previously been prevented from joining the CET team, and sought human rights damages.

The employer argued that the action was justified by the possibility of imminent harm to an inmate or others, characterizing it as an aberration due to emergency circumstances while affirming its ongoing commitment to the policy.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the grievances.

The union filed grievances on behalf of newly hired unclassified General Duty Officers working on the youth side of a detention centre, arguing they should be paid at the Youth Worker (YW) or Correctional Officer 2 (CO2) rate rather than the Correctional Officer 1 (CO1) rate.

The employer argued that CO1 was the appropriate rate based on an underfill policy and that the union was estopped from claiming otherwise.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the grievors performed the same core duties as classified CO2s and YWs, and met more stringent hiring qualifications than typical COs.

The Board held that YW or CO2 was the equivalent civil service classification and rejected the employer's estoppel argument.

The employer admitted to violating the health and safety provisions of the collective agreement by failing to remove an inmate from the institution within the required timeframe under the 'Threats Against Staff' policy.

The breach was caused by an administrative error, and the grievor suffered no economic loss or undue hardship.

The arbitrator awarded $350 in general damages to reflect the severity of the breach without punishing the employer.

The grievor failed to appear at the scheduled continuation of the hearing.

The union requested an adjournment, which the employer agreed to on the condition that it be peremptory on the grievor's attendance at the next scheduled hearing day.

The Board granted the adjournment, noting that the employer reserved the right to require a reasonable justification for the non-attendance and could move to dismiss the case if the grievor failed to appear again.

The union filed grievances alleging the employer failed to respect a non-contact order between the grievor and an inmate who had threatened him.

The grievor was assigned to an area where the inmate was housed, prompting him to go on sick leave.

The Grievance Settlement Board allowed the grievances in part, awarding the grievor 33.5 hours of sick pay for the initial days of his absence and $200 in damages for the employer's failure to properly assign him away from the inmate.

Further compensation was denied because the subsequent sick leave was likely caused by the inmate's release rather than the workplace assignment.

The Association grieved the Employer's failure to roll the grievor into a permanent Business Analyst position under article 18.8.1(e) of the collective agreement.

The grievor had been in a temporary assignment for over 24 months.

The Employer argued there was no continuing need for the work due to a reorganization and funding issues.

The arbitrator found that as of the effective date of the new collective agreement language, there was a continuing need for the work for greater than an additional 12 months.

The Employer was ordered to assign the grievor to a permanent position and make her whole.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of an operator who claimed he should have been offered an overtime shift when two dayshift operators attended a training course.

The employer had assigned a temporary worker to cover the shift at the operator rate of pay to avoid scheduling the grievor for a double shift and paying overtime.

Following a mediation-arbitration session, the arbitrator issued a bottom-line decision dismissing the grievance.

During a mediation-arbitration process concerning a grievance for unpaid stand-by time, the employer requested an order that the union provide particulars regarding the factual basis of the grievance.

The union did not oppose the request.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the union to provide the requested particulars in writing.

The union filed grievances claiming lost overtime opportunities.

The matter proceeded via an Expedited Mediation-Arbitration Protocol.

The Vice-Chair reviewed the submissions and the collective agreement, concluded there was no violation of the collective agreement, and dismissed the grievances.

The parties reached a memorandum of settlement regarding multiple grievances.

On consent, the Grievance Settlement Board issued an order incorporating the settlement terms, which included a confidentiality clause.

The Vice-Chair remained seized of any issues regarding implementation or interpretation.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued an interim order following a conference call.

The grievor was directed to provide the employer with contact information for his referred physiatrist and pain clinic so the employer could seek medical information regarding his return to work.

The union was also ordered to provide particulars of the discrimination and harassment allegations by a specified date, failing which the employer could move to dismiss the grievance.

During a grievance hearing alleging harassment and discrimination by a manager, the union sought to call another employee to provide similar fact evidence regarding the manager's interference with decision-making authority.

The employer objected.

The Grievance Settlement Board ruled the evidence inadmissible, finding that it raised unparticularized allegations that would prejudice the employer and unduly prolong the hearing.

The Board also held that the proposed similar fact evidence lacked relevance beyond showing propensity, and its admission would inappropriately require the Board to make findings of fact on un-grieved allegations concerning another employee.

The grievor failed to attend the continuation of his grievance arbitration hearing, having also missed the previously scheduled date.

The union requested an adjournment, citing the grievor's frustration with the process and his demand that all managers and union officials involved be present.

The employer opposed the adjournment and moved to dismiss the grievance.

The Grievance Settlement Board denied the adjournment request, noting the grievor's lack of respect for the process and failure to provide a reasonable justification for his absence.

As the union could not proceed without the grievor's evidence, the grievance was dismissed.

In the remedial stage of a grievance concerning whether transcript preparation is bargaining unit work, the Employer brought a motion to compel the production of a grievor's income tax returns and supporting documents from 2003 to 2009.

The Union opposed the motion, arguing the documents were not arguably relevant and citing privacy interests under the Income Tax Act.

The Grievance Settlement Board granted the motion, finding that the tax documents were arguably relevant to the Employer's argument that transcript income and other earnings should be offset against claimed losses.

The Board ordered production subject to the redaction of personal information unrelated to income and expenses.

The grievor, an active union representative, alleged that the Employer discriminated against and harassed him due to his union activities.

He claimed this was evidenced by the Employer changing his work schedule and sending him home when he returned from a medical leave without a medical note certifying his fitness to work.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievances, finding that the schedule change was implemented for legitimate operational reasons to align with client hours, and that the requirement for a medical note was a standard practice justified by the lack of specific medical information regarding the grievor's fitness and need for accommodation.

The Board concluded there was no evidence of anti-union animus.

The employer brought two preliminary motions in a grievance arbitration.

The first motion sought to dismiss the grievances for lack of jurisdiction, arguing the grievor was a member of the OPPA bargaining unit, not OPSEU, following a certification order.

The board dismissed this motion, finding that because the grievor was on Long Term Income Protection (LTIP) at the time of the transfer, her status was suspended and she remained in the OPSEU bargaining unit.

The second motion sought to exclude evidence of events occurring prior to a 2001 Minutes of Settlement.

The board granted this motion in part, excluding evidence prior to the December 11, 2000 grievances settled by the MOS, as there were no exceptional circumstances to justify piercing the settlement, but declined to categorically exclude evidence between the grievance date and the signing of the MOS.

The union filed a grievance alleging the employer violated the collective agreement by deducting a day from the grievor's vacation bank after she called in sick.

The employer provided documentation proving the grievor attended work and was paid for work performed on the day in question.

The arbitrator accepted the employer's evidence and dismissed the grievance.

The union referred two grievances to the Grievance Settlement Board alleging that a manager threatened the grievor with death and that management failed to investigate.

The employer raised preliminary objections, arguing the grievances were barred by a prior unfair labour practice settlement and were inarbitrable due to a complete failure to follow the grievance procedure.

The Vice-Chair rejected the estoppel and abuse of process arguments, finding the settlement did not preclude the grievances.

However, the Vice-Chair upheld the objection regarding the grievance procedure, as the grievor completely failed to file the grievances with the employer or follow the required steps.

The grievances were dismissed as inarbitrable.

The grievor filed two grievances claiming his continuous service date was incorrectly calculated and that he was entitled to buy back pension credits for the period 1964 to 1971 with the employer sharing the cost.

The employer argued the grievances were inarbitrable due to extreme delay, as the grievor sought to remedy alleged mistakes from the 1960s and 1970s.

The Grievance Settlement Board found the explanation for the delay insufficient to extend the mandatory time limits.

The grievances were dismissed as untimely and inarbitrable.

The union requested full disclosure of documents relevant to the grievor's discharge, including investigation reports, interview notes, correspondence, and policies.

The employer did not object to the request but required an order from the Board.

The Board ordered the production of the requested documents.