OGSB 2010

The union filed a grievance alleging the employer failed to provide a safe workplace free from harassment and discrimination.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the grievance as inarbitrable because it was referred to arbitration outside the mandatory time limits set out in the collective agreement.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the grievance was clearly outside the mandatory time limits and that it lacked jurisdiction to extend the time limits under section 48(16) of the Labour Relations Act.

The grievance was dismissed as untimely.

The grievor, a Correctional Officer, was previously surplussed and received a severance package.

He was rehired within twenty-four months and was subsequently informed he owed his enhanced severance back to the Employer.

The grievor argued he should not have to repay the monies because the Employer failed to notify him of the amount owing prior to his re-employment and provided erroneous information on its website.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that under the Collective Agreement, the Employer is entitled to repayment when an individual is rehired within twenty-four months, and the lack of prior notification did not negate this obligation.

The Union filed grievances alleging that the Employer violated the Collective Agreement by allowing an untrained person to perform the duties of a Recreational Officer at Invictus Youth Centre.

The Union claimed the Employer reduced the Recreational Officer complement from four to two and hired a Correctional Officer on a temporary basis to act in the role.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievances, finding that the Employer has the management right to determine the staffing complement and that no violation of the Collective Agreement occurred.

The Grievance Settlement Board conducted a review of the implementation of its previous remedial orders aimed at restoring a workplace free from harassment and discrimination at the Toronto Jail.

The Board noted progress on several fronts, including the issuance of Standing Orders, management training, and the installation of security equipment.

The Board varied certain orders, establishing new deadlines for performance development plans, diversity training, and the implementation of the new Workplace Discrimination and Harassment Prevention (WDHP) policy.

The Board also clarified the role of the seconded Deputy-Superintendent in overseeing the restoration process.

Three employees were surplussed from the Ministry of Community and Social Services.

They grieved that they were not included in a December 2008 agreement that allowed fourteen Developmental Services employees who had completed COTA training to be re-classified as Correctional Officers.

The grievors had not completed the training at the time of the agreement because the class was full.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievances, finding that the agreement clearly applied only to named individuals who had completed the training, and the employer had no obligation to offer the grievors Correctional Officer work.

The union filed four grievances on behalf of a correctional officer.

The employer asserted that no Stage 2 grievance meeting had been held and the parties had not agreed to waive it, making the mediation-arbitration session premature.

The union did not dispute this assertion.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the parties to hold a Stage 2 grievance meeting within thirty days.

The Employer moved to dismiss the grievances, arguing the Union failed to comply with a Board order to provide particulars regarding retrospective remedial claims for court reporters.

The Union acknowledged the particulars were incomplete but argued it made best efforts and faced difficulties gathering historical data for hundreds of employees.

The Board denied the motion to dismiss, finding no abuse of process or deliberate flouting of the order.

The Board noted the grievances had already been found to have merit and the matter was at the remedial stage, making dismissal an extraordinary and inappropriate remedy in these circumstances.

The Union was granted an additional six months to complete the particulars.

The grievor, a Correctional Officer, applied for a job trade to move to another facility.

The Superintendent refused to let the grievor move until a replacement was found, delaying the move by six months.

The grievor sought travel time and mileage for this period.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the job trade was granted to be effective when operationally feasible, and there was no violation of the Collective Agreement.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of a correctional officer alleging that the employer breached the collective agreement.

The parties referred the matter to mediation/arbitration and requested a decision without precedent or prejudice, and without written reasons.

The Grievance Settlement Board denied the grievance.

The union filed grievances on behalf of unclassified correctional officers who were redeployed to the Central North Correctional Centre following the closure of the Rideau Correctional & Treatment Centre.

The grievors argued they should have been redeployed to the Ottawa Carleton Detention Centre alongside classified staff, and that the improper redeployment disadvantaged them regarding rollover into classified positions.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievances, finding no violation of the Collective Agreement or the applicable Ministry Employment Relations Committee (MERC) Agreements.

The grievor, a correctional officer, grieved that she was wrongly denied the opportunity to work on statutory holidays in breach of the collective agreement.

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

The arbitrator denied the grievances.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of a Correctional Officer working as a Discharge Planner, alleging that the employer violated the collective agreement.

The parties participated in an expedited mediation-arbitration process in accordance with a negotiated protocol.

Following the process, the arbitrator dismissed the grievance without written reasons, as stipulated by the protocol.

The union filed a grievance alleging that the employer failed to schedule the grievor to work.

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 a grievance challenging three disciplinary suspensions given to the grievor.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the grievance was filed beyond the time limits set out in the collective agreement.

The grievor argued she did not realize the suspensions were disciplinary and was under stress due to her mother's passing.

The Grievance Settlement Board found the grievor's explanation unreasonable, noting the disciplinary letters were clear and she had filed grievances previously.

Applying the Becker test, the Board declined to exercise its discretion to extend the time limits due to the unreasonable and lengthy delay.

The grievance was dismissed.

The Union sought interim relief to prevent the Employer from obtaining and disclosing CPIC checks on Health and Safety Inspectors without their consent, arguing it violated privacy rights.

The Employer contended the checks were necessary to fulfill its disclosure obligations under the McNeil decision for regulatory prosecutions.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that, on an interim basis, the interests of the administration of justice outweighed the privacy concerns, but ordered procedural safeguards including notice to the Inspectors.

The Board also dismissed the Union's request for production of the Employer's legal opinion, finding that solicitor-client privilege had not been waived.

The union filed a grievance alleging that the employer improperly requested medical documentation from the grievor.

The matter proceeded via an Expedited Mediation-Arbitration Protocol.

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

The parties reached a mutually acceptable settlement regarding allegations that the complainant was subjected to discriminatory treatment contrary to the Workplace Discrimination and Harassment Prevention Policy.

The Employer acknowledged the discriminatory treatment and took steps to remedy the situation.

The Grievance Settlement Board terminated the proceedings.

The union filed a grievance alleging that the employer failed to top-up the grievor's work hours.

The matter proceeded under an Expedited Mediation-Arbitration Protocol.

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

The grievor, a correctional officer, was suspended for 20 days following an incident involving excessive use of force against an inmate and subsequent failure to fully cooperate with the investigation.

The Grievance Settlement Board reviewed the investigation report, transcripts, and submissions, concluding that the grievor's initial actions were not accurately reported, the force used was not commensurate with the inmate's behaviour, and the grievor's version of events was inconsistent with other officers' accounts.

The grievance was dismissed and the 20-day suspension was upheld.

The grievor, a correctional officer, was suspended for 20 days following an incident involving excessive use of force against an inmate and a subsequent failure to fully cooperate with the investigation.

The union grieved the suspension, arguing it was excessive.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the grievor knowingly breached protocol, triggered the excessive use of force by entering the inmate's cell, and failed to cooperate with the investigation.

The grievance was dismissed, and the 20-day suspension was upheld.