OGSB 2010

The parties sought a determination on the process for litigating numerous outstanding grievances related to the transition of employees to 'flexible part time' status under Appendix 32 of the collective agreement.

The arbitrator established a streamlined process for the remaining grievances, relying on written statements and submissions rather than viva voce evidence.

Additionally, the union asked whether the employer had an obligation to convert fixed term employees to flexible part time status.

The arbitrator agreed with the employer that there is no such obligation, as Appendix 32 does not contain conversion provisions similar to those found elsewhere in the collective agreement.

The grievor, returning to work after a disability leave, was placed on a three-month temporary assignment as an Electronic Supervision Resource Officer (ESRO).

During this period, he was job shadowing and was not provided with standard ESRO equipment such as a dedicated office, Ministry vehicle, cell phone, pager, building key, or new identification card.

The union grieved, alleging the employer's failure to provide these resources constituted discrimination on the basis of disability contrary to the collective agreement and the Human Rights Code.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that the employer's decisions regarding equipment were based on the grievor's status as a temporary employee engaged in job shadowing, not his disability.

The Union filed group grievances alleging that the Employer violated the collective agreement by directing flexible part-time registrars to train and complete the responsibilities of a clerk, effectively failing to properly reclassify the positions.

The Employer objected on the basis of arbitrability.

The Grievance Settlement Board agreed with the Employer, finding that the grievances were classification grievances and therefore beyond the Board's jurisdiction.

The grievances were dismissed.

The union applied for interim relief during a hearing on the merits of multiple grievances for a Probation and Parole Officer.

The union sought an order placing the grievor in a position meeting her medical restrictions, funding for an extension of a temporary position, or a paid leave of absence.

The employer argued the board lacked jurisdiction to grant substantive interim relief.

The Vice-Chair denied the application for interim relief and deferred providing reasons until the decision on the merits is issued.

The parties sought a determination on the process for litigating numerous outstanding grievances related to the transition of employees to 'flexible part time' status under Appendix 32 of the collective agreement.

The arbitrator established an expedited process based on written statements of fact and submissions, without viva voce evidence unless necessary.

Additionally, the arbitrator ruled that hours of an unpaid leave of absence are not credited toward the minimum annual hours worked for flexible part time employees, as there was no collective agreement language supporting the inclusion of unpaid hours.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of a flexible part-time court clerk, alleging the employer violated the collective agreement by failing to advise her whether premium pay would be triggered for work performed on July 2, 2007.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that at the time the grievance was filed, there was no provision in the collective agreement regarding alternate days or days designated in lieu of holidays.

Furthermore, as a flexible part-time employee, the grievor did not have the option of refusing a scheduled day of work regardless of its designation.

The parties engaged in a process to resolve numerous outstanding grievances related to the interpretation of Appendix 32 of their collective agreement, which introduced a 'flexible part time' employee category.

The arbitrator established a streamlined litigation process for the remaining grievances.

On the substantive issue of whether the employer had an ongoing obligation to annually review the placement of flexible part-time employees into minimum annual hour categories, the arbitrator found that the obligation ceased following a September 2007 Memorandum of Agreement that reduced the categories and removed the review process.

The Union and the Association grieved the Employer's decision to subject certain positions within the Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP) and the Ministry of Revenue (MOR) to security checks under the Ontario Public Service Personnel Screening Checks Policy.

The Employer argued the checks were necessary due to the positions' access to highly sensitive, confidential, and personal information, including federal tax and benefit databases.

The Grievance Settlement Board allowed the grievances, finding that while the information accessed by these positions is confidential, it does not constitute 'highly sensitive information and/or assets' as contemplated by the Policy and its Threat Risk Assessment guidelines, which were intended for positions with access to identity documents, cheque writing machines, or information whose misuse could cause massive financial or political harm.

The Union filed grievances alleging that the Employer violated Appendix 32 of the Collective Agreement by assigning Flexible Part Time (FPT) employees to job shadow classified full-time staff, thereby taking work away from them.

The Employer argued that job shadowing was for learning purposes and did not reduce the number of classified staff.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievances, finding that Appendix 32 does not prohibit job shadowing and that observing another employee does not constitute an assignment of work that adversely impacts full-time regular court office staff.

The union grieved a two-day suspension imposed on a bus driver who received a red light camera offence notice.

The employer had recently implemented a policy mandating an automatic two-day suspension for such offences, departing from its previous practice of issuing little or no discipline.

The arbitrator found that while the employer was entitled to implement a stricter policy to address safety concerns, the automatic penalty provision was unenforceable as it removed management's discretion to consider individual circumstances.

However, upon reviewing the specific facts of the grievor's case, including his speeding, the length of time the light was red, and his lack of remorse, the arbitrator concluded that the two-day suspension was a just and reasonable penalty.

The grievance was dismissed.

In a grievance arbitration concerning the discharge of an employee for inappropriate use of IT resources, the Union brought preliminary motions regarding document production and an alleged change of grounds.

The Grievance Settlement Board directed the Employer to produce a confidential report prepared for the Deputy Minister, finding it arguably relevant, subject to confidentiality conditions.

The Board dismissed the Union's motion to preclude the Employer from relying on three images and an internet usage log, finding that their use did not constitute an impermissible change of grounds as they fell under the stated ground of inappropriate IT resource use.

The union filed a grievance asserting that the position of Administrative Coordinator in the Assistant Deputy Minister's office should be included in the bargaining unit.

The employer argued the position was excluded under the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act because the incumbent was employed in a confidential capacity relating to labour relations and had duties constituting a conflict of interest.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the incumbent had regular and material involvement with sensitive labour relations information and effectively authored conflict of interest responses for the Ministry.

The Board concluded the Act did not apply to the position and dismissed the grievance.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of the grievor alleging that he should have been converted to full-time status and that the failure to do so was based on gender discrimination.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the grievor had not worked sufficient hours to qualify for conversion under the collective agreement.

Furthermore, no evidence of discrimination was provided.

The grievance was denied.

The Union filed a policy grievance alleging the Employer violated the collective agreement by refusing to provide H1N1 vaccinations to institutional employees.

The Employer raised preliminary objections, arguing the grievance was moot because the H1N1 crisis had ended.

The Grievance Settlement Board applied the doctrine of mootness, finding that the issue of vaccinations for staff was no longer a live controversy and a decision on the merits would provide no practical guidance for future pandemics.

The grievance was dismissed as moot.

The union filed a group grievance alleging that flexible part-time (FPT) employees were discriminated against because they did not have the same overtime options as other classified employees under the collective agreement.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the parties had specifically negotiated the terms and conditions for FPT employees, including overtime entitlements, in a comprehensive appendix.

The Board held that differing terms for a distinct classification do not constitute discrimination.

A group grievance was filed alleging a breach of the collective agreement regarding lunch breaks, as the grievors were told to take an hour while others took 45 minutes.

Upon learning of the issue, the employer paid the grievors for the 15-minute difference from the time they achieved flexible part-time status until the grievance was filed.

The union sought retroactive payment back to each grievor's start date.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that the employer had already provided a remedy beyond the Board's standard practice of ordering redress no further back than 30 days prior to the filing of the grievance.

In a multi-faceted grievance arbitration, the employer sought particulars of the claims the grievor sought to advance.

The Grievance Settlement Board directed the union to provide full particulars of all aspects of the grievor's claim, excluding matters already covered by a WDHP investigation.

The union was also directed to provide copies of all documents or materials upon which it intended to rely.

The Employer brought a motion to adjourn the grievance proceedings because the grievor had an active application before the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario alleging the Employer contravened a settlement agreement.

The Union did not oppose the adjournment, provided it was without prejudice to its jurisdictional position.

The Grievance Settlement Board granted the adjournment, with conditions that proceedings may resume after the Tribunal's adjudication or if it serves the purposes of the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act.

The union filed grievances alleging harassment and abuse of management rights by the employer.

The matter proceeded via an Expedited Mediation-Arbitration Protocol.

After reviewing the submissions, the Vice-Chair dismissed the grievances, noting that the parties had entered into a Memorandum of Settlement to resolve similar issues in separate grievances dealing with other employees.

The union filed grievances claiming that two newly created positions fell within its bargaining unit.

The employer brought a motion to defer the grievances to the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB), arguing that the matter was a jurisdictional dispute involving another union (AMAPCEO) and that an application under section 99 of the Labour Relations Act had already been filed.

The Grievance Settlement Board granted the motion to defer, finding that the OLRB was the more appropriate forum to resolve jurisdictional disputes and avoid parallel proceedings.