OGSB 2011

The union filed a grievance alleging that the employer violated Appendix 32 of the collective agreement by assigning criminal registrar work to civil registrars, which resulted in some grievors being assigned administrative duties instead of court duties.

The employer argued that it had the right to assign work based on operational requirements once minimum hour obligations were met.

The arbitrator found no violation of the collective agreement and noted that, even if a violation had occurred, there was no jurisdiction to alter the grievors' minimum hour category.

The grievance was dismissed.

The employer brought a motion requesting the Grievance Settlement Board assume jurisdiction over all aspects of the grievor's unjust dismissal complaint, including allegations of discrimination under the Human Rights Code.

The grievor had filed a concurrent application with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, which indicated it might defer to the Board.

The Board granted the motion, finding it had concurrent jurisdiction to interpret and apply human rights legislation, and directed the grievance to proceed on the merits.

The union filed grievances alleging workplace harassment, failure to accommodate, and unjust suspension.

The Grievance Settlement Board previously ordered the union to provide detailed particulars of the allegations.

The union failed to meet the deadline and subsequently provided deficient particulars that lacked specific details of the alleged harassment.

The Board granted the union a final opportunity to deliver proper particulars and rescheduled the hearing to Toronto due to witness availability and the likelihood of procedural delays.

The grievor, a flexible part-time employee, alleged that local management misled her into selecting a 1000-hour minimum work category rather than a 1500-hour category, resulting in financial loss.

She sought compensation or the opportunity to re-select her hour category.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding no evidence of misrepresentation.

The Board held that the grievor had the opportunity to elect her minimum hour category, the Employer was not obliged to provide more hours than the minimum, and the Employer was entitled under its management rights to hire additional staff to minimize overtime.

The grievor suffered a workplace injury and eventually returned to work on a modified schedule, working four days a week.

He sought to use the Short Term Sickness Plan (STSP) to cover his fifth day off.

The employer argued that Article 41.5 of the collective agreement precluded him from accessing the STSP because his absence was due to an injury for which a WSIB award had been made and his initial WSIB leave period had expired.

The Grievance Settlement Board agreed with the employer, finding that the clear language of Article 41.5 applied to the grievor's situation, thereby preventing him from using the STSP for his regular, accommodation-related absences.

The Grievance Settlement Board held a conference call and directed that the scheduled arbitration be adjourned.

The Union was ordered to provide the Employer with particulars of the grievance, including the actions alleged to contravene the collective agreement and Human Rights Code, names of involved persons, dates, locations, and remedies sought, by May 13, 2011.

The Union filed grievances on behalf of three employees alleging the Employer made unreasonable rules contrary to the Collective Agreement regarding flexible part-time status.

Despite multiple opportunities, the Union was unable to obtain and provide the necessary particulars for the grievances.

As a result, the Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievances for lack of particulars.

The union filed grievances alleging the employer violated the collective agreement by terminating a pre-scheduled day of court work for a flexible part-time employee and re-assigning it to an unclassified employee.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievances, applying a previous decision between the parties which held that flexible part-time employees do not have a right to be scheduled for work in excess of their stated minimum hours before work is offered to fixed-term employees.

The union alleged that the employer breached a mediated settlement agreement by unilaterally terminating an arrangement that provided the grievor with alternating weekends off to assist with child care issues.

The employer argued that family accommodation should be temporary and that the grievor failed to find alternative child care over a two-year period.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that the agreement contained no explicit time limit and that the employer could not unilaterally abrogate the settlement without seeking a prior ruling or demonstrating a change in circumstances.

The employer was ordered to reinstate the accommodation and compensate the grievor for any resulting unpaid leaves of absence.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of an employee alleging her continuous service date was incorrect and seeking an amendment.

The grievor argued she should have been given years of credit dating back to her start with the ministry, similar to other employees converted to classified status.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the grievor had never occupied a flexible part-time (FPT) position and was therefore not entitled to the benefits set out in Appendix 32 of the collective agreement.

The parties entered into Minutes of Settlement resolving their dispute, with the arbitrator remaining seized of any implementation issues.

A dispute arose regarding the timing of the payment of a retiring allowance.

Following submissions and on consent of the parties, the arbitrator ordered that the retiring allowance be paid forthwith.

The grievor, an unclassified correctional officer, grieved that the employer breached the collective agreement when he was sent home from a previously scheduled shift due to a change in operational requirements.

The parties referred the grievance to mediation/arbitration and requested a decision without written reasons.

The Vice-Chair denied the grievance.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued a production order directing a doctor to produce clinical notes and records pertaining to the grievor's assessment and treatment following a motor vehicle accident.

The records are to be provided to union counsel, who will then provide arguably relevant copies to employer counsel, subject to strict confidentiality and use limitations.

The union filed grievances alleging that IT systems officers were entitled to stand-by pay rather than on-call pay while on an after-hours rotation.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the grievances on the basis that the union's particulars did not disclose a prima facie case.

The collective agreement defined stand-by time as requiring an employee to be immediately available to return to the workplace.

The union argued that accessing the employer's network remotely constituted returning to the workplace.

The Grievance Settlement Board rejected this argument, finding that the language explicitly contemplated a physical return to the workplace.

As the union's particulars did not assert that the grievors were required to physically return to the workplace, the motion was granted and the grievances were dismissed.

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

The first two grievances alleged discrimination and failure to accommodate regarding denial of participation in an ICIT team and a requested transfer to Sudbury.

The third grievance alleged the employer breached a prior settlement agreement by failing to place the grievor in a comparable permanent position outside the ministry.

The arbitrator dismissed the first two grievances for lack of evidence but granted the third, finding that the groundskeeper position offered was not comparable to a correctional officer position and the employer's efforts were inadequate.

The employer was ordered to comply with the settlement agreement.

The union filed a grievance challenging the results of a job competition for a Special Projects Foreman/Woman position, alleging the employer breached the collective agreement by failing to consider resumes, personnel files, and references.

The employer conceded that the selection process was flawed but argued the flaws did not affect the outcome.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that while the employer breached its obligation to systematically consider all relevant information, the union failed to establish that the grievor's qualifications and abilities were relatively equal to the successful candidate's, even when the omitted information was considered.

The Board issued a declaration that the collective agreement was breached but declined to order the grievor placed in the position or to direct a rerun of the competition.

The union filed grievances on behalf of an employee who was temporarily assigned to different correctional facilities during a period of restructuring and closures.

The union alleged that the employer failed to pay relocation costs and sought damages for the time the employee spent away from his family.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the grievances were not barred by a prior settlement or time limits, but dismissed them on the merits.

The Board held that the employee did not actually relocate during the relevant period, received appropriate travel expenses, and that no provision of the Collective Agreement was violated.

The parties reached an agreement regarding the grievances.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered that the agreement reached by the parties on December 19, 2011, constitutes an order of the Board.

In a grievance arbitration concerning the surplussing of employees and the creation of new positions, the union alleged the employer's reorganization was a bad faith scheme to 'clean house'.

The union sought disclosure of application materials and personnel files of the individuals selected for interviews and appointments to the new positions.

The employer opposed, arguing it amounted to an improper job competition grievance.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the disclosure, finding the requested materials were arguably relevant to the union's bad faith allegation and did not constitute a fishing expedition.

The grievor, a Correctional Officer, filed a grievance claiming entitlement to call back pay after being notified to attend a meeting regarding a WDHP complaint.

The Employer had paid the grievor for one hour at overtime rates.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the situation did not warrant call back pay as the grievor had been previously scheduled to work and did work those shifts prior to the meeting.