OGSB 2011

The union filed a grievance on behalf of an irregularly scheduled fixed-term correctional officer who was denied attendance credits for October 2009.

The collective agreement provided that employees working 40 hours per week earn attendance credits for each month of full attendance.

The employer argued that the grievor did not meet the 160-hour threshold set out in its Human Resources Guide.

The arbitrator found that the grievor worked 40 non-overtime hours in each week that fell within or overlapped the month, satisfying the collective agreement's requirements.

The arbitrator rejected the employer's estoppel argument, finding that the union had not clearly acquiesced to the 160-hour rule in the context of a compressed work week.

The grievance was allowed.

The union filed grievances on behalf of two unclassified correctional officers alleging that the employer engaged in an unfair distribution of hours.

The union acknowledged there was likely no violation of the collective agreement but argued the employer breached its own equal opportunity policy.

The arbitrator found no contractual obligations upon the employer regarding the assignment of work to unclassified employees and no evidence of any employer policy being abrogated.

The grievances were denied.

The grievor, a Correctional Officer, alleged that the employer improperly failed to roll her over into a classified position, asserting her hours were improperly calculated following a transfer.

The arbitrator reviewed the employment records and found that the grievor was well short of the hours necessary to be rolled over to a classified position in 2009.

The grievance was denied.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of a security officer who alleged he was improperly denied accommodation and forced to accept a lower-paying position during a facility restructuring.

The grievance was filed more than five years after the events in question.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding it was filed considerably beyond the time limits set out in the collective agreement and there were no reasonable grounds to extend the time limits.

In a grievance arbitration concerning the discharge of an employee for dishonesty following a last chance agreement, the union sought to introduce expert evidence from a clinical psychologist to establish that the grievor's conduct was attributable to a mental disability.

The employer objected to the admission of the expert evidence, arguing that it was unnecessary, that the psychologist was not properly qualified, and that he lacked objectivity.

The arbitrator applied the Mohan framework and ruled that the expert evidence was admissible, as it could provide relevant information beyond the arbitrator's experience.

The arbitrator also found the psychologist to be properly qualified and held that any concerns regarding his objectivity should be considered when weighing the evidence, rather than as a basis for exclusion.

The employer brought a motion to dismiss a 2006 grievance and exclude evidence of events from 1996 and 1997 at the L'Orignal Jail during the remedial phase of a hearing.

The union sought to introduce the evidence to support its claim for damages, arguing a 2010 agreement allowed all outstanding claims to be heard.

The Grievance Settlement Board granted the employer's motion, finding the 2006 grievance was untimely and the evidence was barred by 1998 minutes of settlement and a previous 2005 board decision excluding the same evidence.

The grievor, an unclassified Correctional Officer, alleged that she was promised forty hours of work per week during her training.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that her employment contract explicitly stated her terms of employment would be congruent with the Collective Agreement, which contained no guarantee of forty hours per week for unclassified employees.

The grievance was denied.

The Union filed grievances alleging that the Employer violated the collective agreement by failing to pay absenteeism target incentives to fixed-term correctional officers.

The Employer brought a motion to dismiss the grievances on the basis that they did not disclose a prima facie case.

The Grievance Settlement Board granted the motion, finding that the clear language of the collective agreement restricted the incentive payments to 'regular' employees and explicitly excluded fixed-term employees.

The grievances were dismissed.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of an unclassified Registered Practical Nurse alleging the employer violated the collective agreement by failing to grant her a classified position.

The parties had entered into a Memorandum of Agreement regarding the filling of non-Correctional Officer vacancies between March 31, 2008, and December 31, 2008.

The position the grievor sought became vacant when another employee resigned on January 13, 2009.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance because the vacancy occurred outside the timeframe covered by the Memorandum of Agreement.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of a full-time Customer Service Representative who requested to be assigned strictly to the day shift.

The employer denied the request, and the union alleged a violation of Article 6.2 of the Collective Agreement.

The arbitrator found that while Article 6.2 requires certain shifts to be established, it does not confer the right for an employee to be assigned to a particular shift.

The grievance was dismissed.

The union brought a preliminary issue regarding the interpretation of article UN 8.2.1 of the collective agreement, which requires the employer to develop fair and equitable methods for distributing overtime.

The union argued this provision implicitly required the employer to provide records and documentation to verify compliance when overtime is assigned.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the union's argument, finding that the collective agreement could not be reasonably read to include a duty to provide the requested information, as doing so would improperly add to or expand the agreed-upon terms.

The grievor, a Customer Service Representative at a retail store, assumed the duties of an Acting Assistant Manager during an extended absence.

She subsequently sought premium pay under Article 6.12(b) of the Collective Agreement.

The grievance was dismissed as both the union and the employer agreed that the provision was intended to apply solely to acting assignments at the warehouse and head office, not at retail stores.

The Union brought a motion to limit the evidence relating to the reasons for the grievor's discharge to seven weeks from the date he was provided with full reasons for termination.

The grievor was terminated for allegedly falsifying plant logs, with the employer relying on discrepancies between the plant log and security system records going back almost two years.

The Union argued the employer had constructive knowledge of the discrepancies and that it was unfair to expect the grievor to recall specific events from up to 23 months prior.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the motion, finding the employer acted promptly upon actual knowledge and that the grievor would not be prejudiced as the employer bore the burden of disproving his general explanations for the discrepancies.

This decision follows previous rulings dealing with systemic remedies for discrimination and harassment at the Toronto Jail.

The Grievance Settlement Board reviewed the progress of the employer and the union in implementing agreed-upon objectives, including staffing analyses, performance development plans, and human rights training.

The Board noted the withdrawal of several union proposals that were addressed by a new workplace discrimination and harassment policy, and issued further directions on the handling of future complaints.

The parties sought the assistance of the Grievance Settlement Board to resolve issues regarding the implementation of Minutes of Settlement.

The grievor claimed entitlement to a payout of vacation credits without deductions to compensate for delayed implementation, and requested the Employer pay an amount equal to the deductions made from her severance pay because it failed to deposit the payment into her RSP account.

The Vice-Chair directed the Employer to pay the vacation pay less normal statutory deductions, and dismissed the claim regarding the severance pay deductions, finding the grievor failed to raise the issue in a timely manner and could not repay the initial deposit to allow the Employer to comply with her direction.

The Union filed grievances on behalf of Electronic Monitoring Officers (EMOs) claiming entitlement to the Custodial Responsibility Allowance (CRA) under the collective agreement.

The CRA requires employees to direct offenders engaged in beneficial labour for a major portion of their working time.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that EMOs spend the vast majority of their time monitoring offenders in the community to ensure compliance with release conditions, rather than directing offenders engaged in labour beneficial to the institution.

The grievances were dismissed.

The union filed a grievance alleging the employer violated the collective agreement by denying the grievor participation in a compressed work week pilot project, assigning him less meaningful work, and destroying his files.

The employer moved to dismiss the grievance for failing to disclose a prima facie violation.

The arbitrator granted the motion, finding that the compressed work week was a trial project the grievor had no entitlement to join, the work assignments fell within management rights, and the destruction of files did not engage collective agreement rights.

The grievance was dismissed.

The union filed a grievance claiming four hours of travel time for a member attending Joint Occupational Health and Safety Committee meetings.

The employer argued that travel was not authorized due to the proximity of the meeting location to the grievor's workplace.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the travel was not authorized within the meaning of the collective agreement.

The union filed a grievance alleging that a pilot engaged in firefighting duties was entitled to compensating time off under the collective agreement for hours worked beyond 7.25 hours.

The employer argued that the collective agreement provision did not apply due to a separate Float Agreement governing pilots, and alternatively, that the grievor did not have a 'regularly scheduled work day' as required by the provision.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the Float Agreement specifically addressed overtime and compensating leave, thereby precluding the application of the collective agreement provision.

Furthermore, the Board held that due to the irregular nature of the pilot's hours, he did not have a regularly scheduled work day.

The Employer requested an adjournment of a scheduled grievance hearing date because it had not yet completed a broad document production request from the Union and the parties had not finished exchanging particulars.

The Union opposed the request.

The Grievance Settlement Board granted the adjournment, finding it made no sense to proceed without the requested documents and particulars.