OGSB 2011

The union grieved the discipline imposed on several employees for alleged abuse of sick leave, which the employer characterized as a concerted withdrawal of service following the disciplining of another employee.

The matter proceeded via an Expedited Mediation-Arbitration Protocol.

The Vice-Chair found that while a concerted withdrawal of service is a serious breach of conduct, the incident was the first of its kind at the institution and had limited impact.

The discipline for all grievors was reduced to a written warning, with compensation ordered for any grievor who had been suspended.

The union brought a motion for non-suit during a grievance arbitration concerning the termination of a corrections officer.

The grievor was terminated for off-duty conduct, including failing to notify the employer of criminal charges, making death threats to police, and engaging in a police chase resulting in charges of impaired driving and assault with a weapon.

The parties agreed to have the Board determine whether the employer had established a prima facie case for dismissal.

The Board concluded that the employer had adduced sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case for termination.

The motion for non-suit was dismissed, and the case was directed to proceed in the ordinary course.

Eleven correctional officers filed grievances alleging the Employer improperly placed them at the first pay level of their classification upon rehire.

The grievors argued that other rehired officers were placed at a higher level on the grid.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the comparator officers had continued to perform correctional duties at a private facility during their separation, whereas the grievors had not.

The Board concluded the Employer properly exercised its discretion in placing the grievors at the entry level and dismissed the grievances.

The Employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss a grievance filed by a Correctional Officer on the basis of res judicata, relying on a prior decision that dismissed an earlier grievance filed by the same grievor.

The earlier grievance concerned the grievor's date of re-hire and the application of the Re-Hire Policy, while the current grievance alleged discriminatory treatment regarding her rate of pay upon re-hire compared to other similarly situated employees.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the Employer's motion, finding that the facts and legal issues in the two grievances were distinct, and therefore the conditions for res judicata were not met.

The grievor, a Youth Services Officer, was terminated for allegedly punching a restrained youth in the face.

The employer relied on video evidence and an investigator's report.

The arbitrator found the video evidence was inconclusive and consistent with the grievor's explanation that he was grabbing the youth's shoulder.

Eyewitness testimony supported the grievor's version of events.

The employer failed to meet the onus of proving the assault on a balance of probabilities.

The grievance was allowed and the grievor was reinstated with full back pay.

Following a decision upholding the grievances, the parties negotiated the remedy but could not agree on two issues regarding lost wages.

The union argued for compound interest and that Long Term Income Protection (LTIP) payments should not be deducted.

The employer argued for simple interest under the collective agreement and that LTIP must be deducted.

The arbitrator ruled in favour of the employer on both issues, finding the collective agreement language on simple interest mandatory and that deducting LTIP aligns with the principle of making the grievor whole.

The employer was ordered to pay $244,242 in lost wages.

The grievor, an Employer Health Tax Field Auditor, suffered a rotator cuff injury and required workplace accommodation.

She alleged that the employer breached the collective agreement and the Ontario Human Rights Code by unreasonably delaying an ergonomic assessment and the implementation of its recommendations.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the employer acted promptly once medical substantiation was provided.

Although there was a minor administrative delay in ordering equipment, the employer's overall conduct was reasonable and did not constitute a failure to accommodate.

The grievance was dismissed.

In a grievance arbitration concerning the discharge of an employee, the parties made a written request regarding the disclosure of documents.

The Grievance Settlement Board directed the investigator assigned to the grievor's Workplace Discrimination and Harassment Prevention (WDHP) complaint to provide all interview notes and documentation of statements to Employer counsel.

The Union filed grievances alleging the Employer violated Appendix 32 of the Collective Agreement by failing to post work schedules by Friday noon and by cancelling scheduled shifts for flexible part-time employees.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievances, finding that the agreement only required the Employer to notify employees of their schedule as soon as practicable when Friday posting was not possible.

Furthermore, unlike other provisions in the agreement, Appendix 32 contained no penalty for changing a posted schedule.

The parties reached a settlement regarding grievances alleging the employer violated the collective agreement provisions dealing with video display terminals (VDTs).

The settlement provides for relief to correctional officers working in specific modules during peak periods and a lump sum payment of $25,000.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued a consent order incorporating the Minutes of Settlement and remained seized of any issues regarding its implementation.

The Union filed grievances challenging the Employer's decision to change the grievor's status from full-time to part-time and the resulting changes to her pay and benefits, including the continuation of pension contributions under article 42.3 of the collective agreement.

The Employer raised a preliminary objection, arguing that the Grievance Settlement Board lacked jurisdiction to determine the grievor's entitlement to pension contributions because it required a determination of her eligibility for Long Term Income Protection (LTIP) benefits, which falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Joint Insurance Benefits Review Committee (JIBRC).

The Vice-Chair upheld the preliminary objection, finding that the threshold question of LTIP eligibility must be resolved by the JIBRC, and therefore the Board lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate this aspect of the grievances.

The Union filed grievances on behalf of Court Reporters who were assigned Flexible Part Time (FPT) status in 2006, arguing that their vacation and seniority entitlements should be calculated from their date of hire pursuant to a 1994 Memorandum of Agreement.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievances, finding that the 1994 agreement was negotiated long before the FPT category existed and was specific to the integration of individuals affected by a 1990 tribunal decision.

The Board held that the 1994 agreement did not retroactively apply to OPS employees assigned FPT status.

The union requested an adjournment of a grievance arbitration hearing because the complainant failed to attend, citing a medical leave but providing no medical documentation.

The employer opposed the adjournment, noting a history of delays and the complainant's lack of respect for the process, but agreed in the alternative to a peremptory adjournment.

The Vice-Chair granted the adjournment on a peremptory basis, directing the complainant to attend the next scheduled hearing date or provide sufficient medical justification for her absence.

The union filed a grievance alleging a violation of the Ministry Escort Policy.

The matter proceeded via an Expedited Mediation-Arbitration Protocol.

After reviewing the submissions and the collective agreement, the Vice-Chair dismissed the grievance.

In a grievance arbitration concerning events that occurred several years prior, the employer objected that the grievance was untimely.

The parties agreed to a timetable for the delivery of particulars.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued a consent order directing the union to deliver full written particulars of its allegations of material fact regarding the merits of the grievance and any request to extend time limits by January 21, 2011.

The employer brought two preliminary motions to restrict the scope of evidence in grievances alleging workplace discrimination and harassment.

The first motion sought to exclude evidence from December 2000 to February 2001 for a 2003 grievance; the Vice-Chair found this motion premature.

The second motion sought to limit evidence for 2009 grievances to three years prior to filing.

The Vice-Chair held that evidence predating a 2001 settlement was inadmissible, but allowed evidence from December 11, 2000 onwards, departing from the usual three-year rule due to the grievor's lengthy absence on long-term disability and the overlapping nature of the complaints.