OGSB 2011

Two employees were discharged for multiple reasons, including their alleged involvement in moderating a highly inappropriate and malicious workplace blog.

One employee was also discharged for using government resources to conduct a personal business.

The other employee was discharged for unauthorized access to a government database, running a personal business on work time, and using his government email to receive and distribute highly offensive pornographic images.

The arbitrator found that the employer had established just cause for both discharges.

The arbitrator emphasized the employees' lack of honesty during the investigation and the hearing, concluding that the employment relationship and trust had been irreparably broken.

The grievances were dismissed.

The union filed grievances alleging the employer violated the collective agreement by refusing to adjust a casual employee's seniority date.

The grievor had resigned and been re-hired multiple times due to geographic relocations, losing her accumulated seniority each time under the rules in place.

Following recent collective agreement changes allowing province-wide postings, the grievor sought recognition of her original 1991 start date.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievances, finding the collective agreement clearly provided that casual seniority accumulates only from the most recent appointment, and the new posting rules did not apply retroactively to alter seniority calculation.

The Grievance Settlement Board revoked its previous decision of October 12, 2011.

Following a conference call and upon the request of the parties for limited reasons, the Board ruled that Article 9 of the Memorandum of Settlement should be interpreted in the manner advanced by AMAPCEO.

The Employer was directed to implement Article 9 accordingly.

The grievor, a correctional officer, filed a grievance alleging he was not advised of various vacancies at other institutions prior to making an election during a restructuring process.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding no entitlement under the Collective Agreement or the MERC agreement for individual employees to be told of all vacancies.

The agreement only required the employer to provide a list of vacancies to the MERC Employee Transition Committee, which was not alleged to have been violated.

The grievor, a fixed-term Administrative Assistant, sought conversion to permanent status after working for more than 18 months.

A significant portion of this time was spent backfilling for another employee's maternity leaves.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, confirming that work performed while backfilling for a maternity leave does not count towards the hours required for conversion.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of an employee alleging that the employer violated the collective agreement by assigning work to his classification that properly belonged to a higher classification, and sought re-classification as a remedy.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the Grievance Settlement Board lacked jurisdiction to deal with classification grievances.

The Vice-Chair agreed with the employer and summarily dismissed the grievance for want of jurisdiction.

The union sought to arbitrate a dispute over a correctional officer's entitlement to legal indemnity for criminal charges that were later withdrawn.

The employer moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that a prior memorandum of settlement merely preserved the grievor's claim from a general release but did not confer jurisdiction.

Furthermore, the union failed to refer the subsequent grievance to arbitration within the collective agreement's time limits.

The employer's motion to dismiss was granted.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of an employee claiming her permanent full-time seniority date should include her prior service as a casual employee.

The grievance was heard through an expedited mediation-arbitration process.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that the collective agreement clearly and unambiguously provided that a casual employee appointed to permanent staff begins employment with a fixed seniority date equal to their first day of permanent employment.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of a court reporter alleging she was placed into an incorrect flexible part-time hour category under Appendix 32 of the collective agreement.

The grievor sought placement in the 1500 hour category, arguing her hours were affected by illness and preferential scheduling of others.

Upon review of the grievor's hours of work history since 1999, the parties agreed the hours were pro-rated appropriately.

The Grievance Settlement Board found the grievor was properly assigned to the 1000 hour category and dismissed the grievance.

Prior to the commencement of an arbitration hearing regarding a ten-day suspension and non-disciplinary transfer for alleged sexual harassment, the union objected to the employer's intention to introduce an investigation report into evidence.

The union argued the report was hearsay, contained opinions that would usurp the Board's role, and was highly prejudicial.

The Board dismissed the objection, following previous jurisprudence that such reports are relevant to how the employer arrived at its decisions and that the Board is capable of weighing hearsay evidence appropriately.

The Union filed a grievance regarding the payment of shift premiums for 12.5-hour shifts at the Vanier facility.

The issue was whether employees were entitled to a prorated shift premium for the first and last 15 minutes of their shifts under the collective agreement, which provided a premium 'per hour for all hours worked'.

The Ministry argued that the language required employees to work a full hour to receive the premium.

The Grievance Settlement Board allowed the grievance, finding that the phrase 'per hour for all hours worked' clearly includes the concept of pro rata payment for partial hours worked.

The grievor alleged that improper comments referencing her age were made to her during an Escort Training session in April 2008, and that the employer failed to process the grievance within appropriate time limits.

The Grievance Settlement Board upheld the grievance in part, awarding the grievor $1,000 in damages for breach of her human rights arising from the original event.

The union grieved the employer's decision to use a lottery system to assign a preferred desk, alleging it violated the collective agreement and the Human Rights Code by discriminating on the basis of age and gender.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the grievance for failing to disclose a prima facie case.

The Grievance Settlement Board struck portions of the union's particulars that improperly expanded the scope of the grievance.

Assuming the remaining facts were true, the Board found that the failure to assign a desk based on seniority did not constitute a human rights violation, and dismissed the grievance.

The Employer requested an adjournment of two scheduled hearing dates in November 2011 for a suspension and dismissal grievance, citing a significant scheduling conflict.

The Union opposed the request, noting the grievor had been suspended without pay since July 2009 and desired a prompt resolution.

The Grievance Settlement Board granted the adjournment subject to conditions, including the scheduling of six further hearing dates in January and February 2012 and the preservation of the Union's right to claim verifiable costs resulting from the adjournment.

The union filed a health and safety grievance alleging that the HVAC system at the Toronto Jail required cleaning.

The matter proceeded via an Expedited Mediation-Arbitration Protocol.

The Vice-Chair allowed the grievance and ordered the employer to forthwith implement the recommendations from the Ontario Realty Corporation's assessment report regarding the HVAC system.

The union filed a policy grievance arguing that the employer was estopped from changing its practice regarding pension contributions for full-time employees on short, unpaid, non-statutory leaves.

Previously, employees paid only their portion of the contribution, but following a correction by OMERS, employees were required to pay both their own and the employer's contribution to buy back service.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the union failed to establish the criteria for estoppel.

The board noted that the collective agreement did not address the issue, the employer's past practice was an administrative error based on a misunderstanding of the OMERS plan, and the new rule was not unconscionable as employees could opt out of buying back service.

The union and the grievor alleged that the employer breached a Memorandum of Settlement by delaying the issuance of a Record of Employment (ROE) to the Federal Government following a lump sum payment.

The union claimed this delay negatively impacted the grievor's ability to collect Employment Insurance benefits.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the claim, finding that the settlement document contained no reference to an ROE, and therefore the delay could not constitute a breach of the settlement.

The union filed a grievance alleging the employer violated the collective agreement by denying the grievor a Senior Administrative Clerk position following a job competition.

The employer relied solely on interview and practical test scores, failing to consider the grievor's successful performance in the position in an acting capacity or to conduct reference checks.

The Grievance Settlement Board found this sole reliance on interview scores violated the collective agreement.

Concluding that the grievor would have been found at least relatively equal to the successful candidate had her experience been properly assessed, the Board ordered the employer to appoint the grievor to the position retroactively and compensate her for lost earnings.

The union filed a grievance alleging the employer violated the collective agreement by failing to assign forklift work by seniority.

The employer had assigned the work to a junior employee as modified duties to accommodate a temporary disability.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding no collective agreement requirement to assign tasks by seniority and noting that the employer and union have a duty to accommodate disabled workers under the Human Rights Code, which is incorporated into the collective agreement.

The Union and the Employer participated in an expedited mediation/arbitration process to resolve grievances arising from the implementation of an Attendance Support and Management Pilot Program.

The grievor challenged the application of the program.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that it was based on an imperfect understanding of the law and lacked merit.