OGSB 2011

The Grievor, an Income Support Specialist at the Ontario Disability Support Programme (ODSP), was discharged for alleged dishonesty, breach of trust, and conflict of interest.

The Employer alleged that the Grievor deliberately approved numerous benefits for six clients without following proper procedures or obtaining required documentation, resulting in approximately $100,000 in unsupported benefits.

The Grievor denied deliberate misconduct, claiming innocent mistakes and heavy workload.

The Grievance Settlement Board found the Grievor's explanations lacked credibility and concluded that the overwhelming evidence demonstrated a deliberate and dishonest pattern of ignoring eligibility requirements to advantage select clients.

The grievance was dismissed and the discharge upheld.

The Union filed a policy grievance alleging that the Employer violated privacy legislation and the Collective Agreement by proactively obtaining Canada Police Information Centre (CPIC) checks on Occupational Health and Safety Inspectors without their consent.

The Employer argued that the checks were necessary to fulfill its disclosure obligations under the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in R. v. McNeil.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that McNeil did not compel the Crown to proactively obtain third-party CPIC information without consent, noting that privacy interests must be balanced and that the O'Connor process is available for third-party records.

The Board declared that the Employer's broad approach did not accord with an appropriate exercise of management rights and allowed the grievance.

In a grievance concerning a job competition, the parties asked the Grievance Settlement Board to determine a preliminary issue regarding the appropriate standard for assessing applicants.

The collective agreement provided a preference for AMAPCEO unit applicants where qualifications and ability were relatively equal.

The successful applicant, originally from outside the unit, acquired AMAPCEO unit status after the posting closed but before the final selection was made.

The Board held that an applicant's status must be determined as of the date the job posting closes, not the date of final selection, to ensure certainty and prevent potential manipulation of the process.

The parties sought clarification regarding the interpretation and application of a prior settlement dated September 16, 2009.

On consent, the Grievance Settlement Board ordered that the total settlement amount payable was $10,139.73, from which the employer was entitled to deduct $4,339.90 for the recovery of WSIB benefits paid to the grievor prior to November 5, 2009.

The employer was directed to pay the net amount of $5,799.83 to the grievor.

The union filed a grievance claiming assignment and pay for a position that was not filled on the Victoria Day holiday in 2010.

The employer argued it had no requirement to fill the position for that shift and exercised its discretion not to staff it.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding no rights arise when the employer exercises its discretion not to staff a position.

The parties reached an agreement regarding the implementation of paragraph 8 of the Minutes of Settlement dated April 9, 2009.

The employer agreed to distribute a hard copy of Schedule A to all employees who worked at the ODSP Mississauga office on that date.

The document will be printed on Ministry letterhead, signed by management and union stewards, and posted in the Brampton and Mississauga ODSP offices.

Two unclassified Correctional Officers filed grievances alleging the Employer violated the Collective Agreement by failing to include them in a roll-over to classified status.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that neither grievor met the one-year eligibility criteria set out in the Expression of Interest and the Memorandum of Agreement.

The grievances were dismissed.

The union grieved the discipline imposed on several employees for an alleged abuse of sick leave that occurred after another employee was disciplined.

The employer characterized the incident as a concerted withdrawal of service.

The arbitrator found that while a concerted effort to use withdrawal of service to pressure the employer is a serious breach of conduct, the parties had made joint efforts to counsel and warn employees since a similar prior incident.

The grievances were upheld in part, and the discipline for each grievor was reduced by one level.

The Grievor, a casual employee, requested a transfer to a different geographic posting area because her husband found employment there.

The Employer agreed to the transfer but denied her request to transfer her seniority on compassionate grounds.

The Union grieved, arguing the Employer exercised its discretion in an arbitrary, discriminatory, and unfair manner.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding no evidence that the Employer acted in bad faith or contrary to its standard practice of requiring exceptional circumstances for seniority transfers.

The grievor, a bus driver, was terminated for texting on her cell phone while driving a bus with passengers.

The union grieved the termination, arguing the penalty was excessive and seeking a lesser penalty.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the grievor had a prior disciplinary record for the same offence, had signed a condition of continued employment, and demonstrated a lack of remorse and dishonesty throughout the investigation and hearing.

The termination was upheld.

The complainant failed to attend a scheduled grievance arbitration hearing regarding her ten-day suspension and alleged breach of a settlement agreement.

Despite being directed to attend or provide medical justification for her absence, she did not appear or communicate with her union representative.

The employer requested the complaint be dismissed and withdrew its own allegations.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the dispute due to the complainant's failure to participate.

The parties resolved several grievances, leaving four outstanding.

To ensure an expeditious hearing for the remaining grievances, the Grievance Settlement Board ordered the union to provide full particulars and identify further evidence and documentary disclosure needed.

The employer was ordered to provide the requested disclosure and identify additional facts it would rely upon.

The union filed multiple grievances on behalf of the grievor concerning various issues, including sick leave credits, staffing, overtime opportunities, work schedules, union activities, discipline for insubordination following a work refusal, and denial of compassionate leave.

The Grievance Settlement Board reviewed the submissions under an Expedited Mediation-Arbitration Protocol.

The Vice-Chair dismissed all of the grievances, finding no violation of the collective agreement by the employer in any of the matters raised.

The Grievor, a Youth Services Officer, was terminated for allegedly using excessive force and failing to de-escalate a confrontation with a young person who knocked a food tray out of his hands.

The arbitrator found that while the Grievor did not throw the tray or use a headlock, he violated the Use of Force Policy by using force when it was not 'absolutely necessary,' as he could have simply left the room.

Finding termination too severe for a long-service employee with a clean record, the arbitrator substituted a four-week suspension.

However, due to restrictions under the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act regarding employees who apply force to residents, the arbitrator ordered reinstatement to a substantially equivalent position without direct resident contact.

The union alleged that the employer breached a settlement agreement requiring it to deliver job vacancy information to the grievor's home via courier on a weekly basis.

The grievor, who was on long-term disability and unable to return to work, sought $70,000 in damages for mental distress.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the employer had failed to deliver the materials on 2 to 4 occasions out of over 100 deliveries, constituting a minor breach.

The Board issued a declaration of the breach but declined to award damages, finding no concrete economic loss or significant psychological harm.

The Board also declined the employer's request to be relieved of its ongoing delivery obligations, emphasizing the sanctity of settlement agreements.

Seven correctional officers at the Windsor Jail filed grievances alleging the Employer violated the Collective Agreement by failing to convert them to classified status.

The grievances arose from the restructuring and decommissioning of provincial correctional institutions.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievances, finding that the grievors did not satisfy the criteria set out in the Collective Agreement regarding eligibility for conversion.

The grievor, an unclassified Correctional Officer, alleged that the Employer violated the Collective Agreement by failing to offer her a roll-over opportunity during a restructuring process.

The parties had agreed to roll over seven officers, and the grievor had 64 fewer hours than the officer who received the seventh position.

The Grievance Settlement Board found no violation of the Collective Agreement and dismissed the grievance.

The grievor, a Correctional Officer, was discharged for using excessive force on an inmate and submitting false reports.

The incident involved a 28-second cell entry where the grievor allegedly punched the inmate.

Despite conflicting testimony and the grievor's denial, video evidence and the testimony of another officer, who overcame the 'code of silence' to report the assault, supported the employer's allegations.

The arbitrator found the grievor committed a serious offence without justification and continued to obscure his misconduct.

The grievance was dismissed and the termination upheld.

The union filed grievances challenging the employer's practice of assigning shifts to unclassified employees where the shift takes the employee over the 40-hour limit, resulting in part of the shift becoming overtime.

The union argued the employer must split the shift, assigning only the hours up to 40 to the unclassified employee and offering the remainder to classified employees as an overtime opportunity.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievances, finding the employer's practice consistent with the collective agreement.

The union filed three grievances on behalf of the grievor.

The first challenged the employer's practice of printing the grievor's name on Polaris system abstracts, which the Board dismissed as it was founded solely on the management rights clause and did not breach the collective agreement.

The second alleged improper denial of union leave on December 24, 2008, which the Board dismissed because the employer reasonably concluded it was not possible to adhere to the schedule due to staffing shortages.

The third alleged improper denial of union leave for voting on January 30, 2009, which the Board dismissed, finding the employer acted reasonably by granting three of four requested days and offering partial leave for the fourth.