OGSB 2011

The Union filed a grievance alleging the Employer violated the Collective Agreement and the Provincial Overtime Protocol by refusing to compensate Fixed-Term employees for missed overtime opportunities.

The Employer argued that under the Collective Agreement, Fixed-Term employees are not entitled to be paid for a breach of the overtime protocol.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the Protocol applies to both Regular and Fixed-Term employees and does not distinguish between them regarding remedies for a breach.

The Board held that Fixed-Term employees are entitled to remedial relief if a violation of the Protocol occurs.

The union requested an order directing the employer to produce documents relevant to grievances alleging the employer failed to consider impacted employees for temporary assignments under Appendix 40 of the collective agreement.

The employer opposed the broad production sought but could not explain why the documents were not arguably relevant.

The Grievance Settlement Board granted the union's request and ordered the employer to produce all documents relating to communications and considerations regarding temporary assignments for impacted employees during the relevant period.

The grievor was suspended for one day for abandoning his workstation and for three days for insubordination and swearing at his supervisor.

The parties agreed to an expedited mediation-arbitration process.

The Vice-Chair found that the discipline imposed was excessive in the circumstances.

The one-day suspension for abandoning the workstation was upheld, but the three-day suspension for insubordination was reduced to one day.

The grievances regarding the supervisor's conduct were dismissed as the supervisor no longer supervised the grievor.

The Union grieved the Employer's decision to pass over the grievor for a promotion to a full-time warehouseperson position.

The Employer determined the grievor was not qualified due to his extensive absenteeism, applying a standard of fewer than 15 days absent per year over the preceding three years.

The Union argued attendance was not an appropriate qualification and that the grievor's absences were related to personal stress.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that regular attendance was a reasonable qualification for a full-time position and that the Employer's standard was reasonably applied.

The Employer moved to dismiss over fifty grievances filed by Court Reporters alleging non-compliance with the collective agreement regarding transcript production.

The Employer argued these grievances raised the same issues currently being addressed in the remedial phase of a prior Board decision (Hunt et al.).

The Vice-Chair denied the motion, finding that the prior decision did not give the Board continuing jurisdiction to ensure compliance with the collective agreement, and that the new grievances raised new matters arising from the Employer's ongoing failure to comply with the prior decision.

The union filed a grievance alleging the employer failed to adhere to the Short Term Assignment and Escort Policies.

The matter proceeded via an Expedited Mediation-Arbitration Protocol.

The Vice-Chair reviewed the submissions and the collective agreement, and dismissed the grievance.

The union filed a grievance asserting that warehouse clerks at the employer's London logistics facility should progress between grades without needing to post to the higher grade, similar to the progression of warehouse workers.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that unlike warehouse workers whose duties are essentially the same across grades, the clerk grades reflect different duties and skills.

Under the collective agreement, advancement to a higher grade or classification requires employees to post to that position.

The union filed grievances alleging improper scheduling of a permanent part-time employee.

The parties sought a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of the collective agreement regarding the allocation of additional hours.

The arbitrator held that the employer is not required to offer hours outside a permanent part-time employee's recorded availability before scheduling a casual employee, nor is the employer required to modify a full shift to offer a portion of it to a permanent part-time employee.

The unions filed a grievance alleging that the Employer failed to implement Phase 3 of the Ontario Public Service Personnel Screening Checks Policy in a timely manner.

The Grievance Settlement Board declared that the Employer's failure to commence harmonization by late 2010 was inconsistent with a reasonable interpretation of its obligations under the Policy.

However, because the Employer presented a plan to commence the process during the hearing, the Board declined to order specific timelines for completion, immediate harmonization of re-checks, or formal document production, allowing the Employer's process to unfold while remaining seized of the matter.

The grievor alleged that he was not paid for all actual hours worked while in receipt of WSIB benefits in 2005-06.

The parties agreed to review the grievor's actual pay against the hours attributed with the employer's payroll advisor to determine if he was compensated appropriately.

The matter was adjourned to allow the parties to conduct this review, with any outstanding issues to be brought back before the Vice-Chair at a later date.

The Union filed group grievances alleging that the scheduling of court reporters for weekend and statutory holiday bail hearings at the Old City Hall courthouse was inequitable and violated the collective agreement's provisions on management rights, discrimination, and health and safety.

The Employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the grievances, arguing there was no prima facie case and noting the absence of medical evidence.

The Grievance Settlement Board denied the motion, holding that the Union's allegations of fact must be taken as true at this stage and that dismissing the grievances without hearing the grievors' evidence would violate natural justice.

In a grievance arbitration concerning a transfer and subsequent surplussing, the employer sought full particulars before complying with the Association's request for document disclosure.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that a blanket assertion of inadequate particulars does not justify withholding arguably relevant documents.

The Board ordered the employer to comply with the disclosure request, noting that the employer could object to specific documents on grounds of privilege or confidentiality, and could seek specific particulars if needed.

The union grieved an alleged overpayment made by the employer to the grievor during periods of short-term disability.

The employer claimed it erroneously continued her full salary.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the employer to provide particulars of the alleged overpayment, a detailed accounting, and relevant employment records.

The Board further ordered the employer not to withhold any monies from the grievor in respect of the alleged overpayment until the amount is agreed upon or determined by the Board.

The grievor, a Correctional Officer, grieved that she was improperly denied a 'rolled-over' classified position.

She was seventh on the seniority list for six available positions.

The grievor argued she should have been considered sixth because the employee who actually held the sixth position was being accommodated and was not medically fit to perform all duties.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding no violation of the Collective Agreement or MERC Agreement, as accommodated employees are not bypassed in roll-over situations.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued a brief decision appointing Michael A. Davis to conduct a review of the Ministry's investigation into hate crimes, following consultation with the parties.

The grievors, casual employees, grieved the increase in the full-time complement at their retail location, which resulted in a reduction of their assigned hours.

The union argued the decision was unfair and inconsistent with staffing at other locations, seeking the removal of one full-time staff member.

The arbitrator found no evidence that the employer acted in an arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad faith manner in determining the full-time complement, nor any violation of the collective agreement.

The grievance was dismissed.

In a grievance arbitration under the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act, the Grievance Settlement Board ordered the Union to provide written particulars of the grievance.

The particulars must be provided at least 45 days prior to the next scheduled hearing date.

In a grievance arbitration concerning an employee who was surplussed following organizational changes, the Association requested further document disclosure after the Employer's first witness testified.

The Employer argued the documents were not arguably relevant, contending the issue was narrowly about whether the grievor was properly matched.

The Association argued the entire reorganization process was suspect as the grievor was the only employee surplussed.

The Vice-Chair found the requested documents arguably relevant and ordered their disclosure.

The union filed a policy grievance on behalf of two groups of correctional officers, alleging the employer failed to provide a workplace free from harassment and discrimination.

The workplace became poisoned due to anonymous racist and threatening hate mail, leading to severe racial divisions and a breakdown of trust among staff.

The employer admitted liability for negligence in its handling of the situation between 2005 and 2008.

The arbitrator found that while the employer did not write the letters, its response was inadequate and failed to sufficiently address the systemic issues until 2008.

The arbitrator awarded $1,500 to each affected employee in Group A and $1,000 to each affected employee in Group B for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

The Employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss union grievances regarding the calculation of absenteeism target incentives, arguing that a January 2010 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) precluded such challenges.

The MOA prevented the Union from challenging the Employer's 2009 data and attendance targets.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the motion, finding that while the MOA settled the attendance target percentage, it did not contain clear language waiving the Union's right to grieve the Employer's calculation of individual 'hours worked' for the purpose of applying the incentive payment.