OGSB 2010

The union filed grievances relating to post assignments and a request for payment of a support person's expenses.

The matter proceeded under an Expedited Mediation-Arbitration Protocol.

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

In an interim decision, the Grievance Settlement Board found that the grievor's return to work medical note was insufficient for the employer to determine if it was medically safe for him to return.

The Board ordered the grievor to have his doctor answer specific questions provided by the employer.

Additionally, the Board ordered the union to provide particulars regarding allegations of discrimination and harassment by a specified date, noting that failure to do so could result in a motion to dismiss the grievance.

The Union sought disclosure of documents relating to the determination of an employee's entitlement to Long Term Income Protection (LTIP) benefits and rehabilitative employment benefits.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the Employer to disclose documents regarding LTIP benefits, including its contract with Manulife Financial, but declined to order disclosure regarding rehabilitative employment benefits at this time.

The Union raised a preliminary objection seeking to exclude a forensic handwriting analyst's report, arguing that the Employer breached the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act by providing the grievor's handwriting samples from business documents to the analyst.

The Employer used the samples to identify the grievor as the author of an offensive comment on a sympathy card.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the objection, finding that the labour relations exceptions in s. 65(6) of the Act applied, as the documents were used in relation to anticipated proceedings and employment-related matters in which the Employer had an interest.

The union filed grievances alleging health and safety violations.

The parties agreed to an Expedited Mediation-Arbitration Protocol.

After reviewing the submissions, the Vice-Chair dismissed the grievances, noting that the parties agreed to discuss the issues at the Joint Health and Safety Committee.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss portions of a grievance, arguing that the union was improperly attempting to expand the grounds of the original grievance to include three prior suspensions, and alternatively, that challenges to those suspensions were untimely.

The arbitrator found that the original grievance, which alleged improper, unfair, and unreasonable actions jeopardizing the grievor's job security, was broad enough to encompass the three suspensions as part of an ongoing pattern of alleged harassment.

Because the suspensions were considered part of an ongoing allegation of harassment rather than discrete incidents, the grievance was deemed timely.

The employer's motions were dismissed.

The union filed grievances on behalf of several correctional officers alleging that their roll-over to classified status was unduly delayed during the restructuring of provincial correctional institutions, entitling them to various benefits.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievances, noting that previous decisions had established that while some roll-overs took longer than expected, the delays were due to bona fide operational issues and no bad faith was proven.

The complainant, a former fixed-term unclassified contract employee, alleged the employer conducted an unfair job competition.

The employer raised a preliminary objection to the arbitrability of the dispute, arguing that as a former employee, the complainant could not advance a grievance regarding the competition.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the preliminary objection, finding that the collective agreement explicitly granted former employees the right to apply for restricted competitions for 24 months after layoff.

The Board concluded this negotiated benefit created a substantive right enforceable through the grievance arbitration procedure.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of the grievor concerning health and safety issues at the Elgin-Middlesex Detention Centre.

The parties agreed to resolve the grievance based on written materials and submissions, requesting a bottom-line decision without reasons.

The arbitrator ordered the employer to place the grievor in a temporary assignment at the Walkerton Jail, which would become permanent if acceptable to the grievor.

The arbitrator also ordered that specific individuals identified as a threat to the grievor be transferred to another institution if admitted to the Walkerton Jail.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of an employee alleging she was improperly surplussed from her position as a Medical Clerk during a workplace restructuring.

The grievor had been redeployed to a different position and subsequently applied for and won a position at another facility.

She claimed her original position continued to exist and was occupied by an employee with less seniority.

The Grievance Settlement Board found no evidence that such a full-time position existed or that the collective agreement was violated, and dismissed the grievance.

The grievor, a correctional officer, grieved the employer's denial of his late request for a vacation day.

The employer argued the denial was based on operational requirements and did not violate the collective agreement.

The matter proceeded to an expedited mediation/arbitration hearing.

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

The grievor, a Correctional Officer, filed a grievance alleging he should have been rolled over to full-time classified status in July 2007.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the grievance was filed outside the time limits set out in the Collective Agreement.

The arbitrator agreed with the employer's objection and denied the grievance.

The union grieved that the employer breached the collective agreement by disciplining a correctional officer.

The parties referred the grievances to expedited mediation/arbitration without written reasons.

The arbitrator granted the grievances, ordering the employer to expunge the discipline from the grievor's file, restore lost pay, and pay 36 hours at the overtime rate.

The union filed approximately 235 grievances alleging that the employer failed to make reasonable provisions for the health and safety of employees by exposing them to second-hand smoke in correctional facilities.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that many of the grievances were untimely.

The parties agreed to use one grievance as a test case.

The grievor had been exposed to second-hand smoke between 1991 and 2001, but did not file a grievance until November 2005, after learning of financial awards in other legal proceedings related to second-hand smoke.

The union requested an extension of the time limits under subsection 48(16) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the grievor was solely responsible for the lengthy delay and had not acted diligently in pursuing his rights.

The Board concluded there were no reasonable grounds to extend the time limit and dismissed the test case grievance as untimely.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of an employee regarding the rescheduling of a co-worker's compressed work week scheduled day off.

The employer conceded that it moved the scheduled day off outside of the three-week limit prescribed by the collective agreement.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued a declaration that the employer breached the agreement.

Three nurses grieved that the employer violated the collective agreement by failing to place fixed term nurses on the pay grid according to their education and experience.

The employer argued that salary placement is negotiated upon hire.

Following an expedited hearing without written reasons, the Grievance Settlement Board found no evidence of a breach of the collective agreement and dismissed the group grievance.

The union filed grievances on behalf of several correctional officers regarding the repayment of sick leave.

The officers had been improperly rolled over and, upon returning to unclassified status, were told to repay sick leave payments.

Following submissions from both parties, the arbitrator determined that the grievors should be partially compensated.

The employer was ordered to pay each grievor fifty percent of their claim.

A group grievance was filed by unclassified Correctional Officers at Maplehurst Correctional Centre alleging inequities in working conditions and scheduling practices between classified and unclassified staff.

The Union argued that the reduction of unclassified staff led to health and safety issues, training inadequacies, and excessive overtime.

The Employer asserted an unfettered management right to determine the workforce and argued the Board lacked jurisdiction.

The Vice-Chair agreed with the Employer, finding no jurisdiction to uphold the grievances, and dismissed them.

The Employer raised a preliminary objection that the Grievance Settlement Board lacked jurisdiction to hear grievances concerning its unilateral decision to cease agreeing to compensating time off (CTO) for overtime worked.

The Employer argued that the collective agreement made CTO subject to mutual agreement, and its refusal to agree was an unreviewable exercise of management rights.

The Union argued the decision violated local agreements, past practice, and other collective agreement provisions.

The Board dismissed the Employer's preliminary objections, finding it had jurisdiction to determine whether the Employer's exercise of management rights adversely affected substantive rights under the collective agreement, and that the Union had provided sufficient particulars of its case.

The union grieved the results of several job competitions for Worker Adviser positions, alleging the employer violated article 6.3 of the collective agreement by relying exclusively on interview scores and failing to consider the internal candidates' past performance and qualifications.

The Grievance Settlement Board found the selection process fundamentally flawed because the employer failed to review personnel files, performance evaluations, or resumes beyond initial screening.

The Board ordered the retroactive appointment of two grievors who demonstrated they were relatively equal or met the minimum qualifications, and ordered the competitions to be re-run for the other two grievors.