OGSB 2012

The grievors, classified as Cook 2, obtained temporary Cook 3 positions and subsequently filed grievances requesting reclassification to permanent Cook 3 positions.

The parties signed a Memorandum of Agreement stating the grievances would be withdrawn if a business case for the Cook 3 positions was approved.

The business case was not approved, and the grievors were returned to their Cook 2 positions and surplussed.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the original grievances, finding no provision in the collective agreement obliging the employer to fill vacant positions.

Two Court Reporters grieved that their call-back hours were not counted toward their minimum weekly hours requirement as flexible part-time employees.

The Employer demonstrated that the hours were indeed counted, but were processed as a leave of absence without pay in the payroll system to ensure the correct premium pay rate was applied without accruing deficit hours.

The Grievance Settlement Board found no violation of the collective agreement and dismissed the grievances.

The union filed grievances alleging that the employer improperly pro-rated vacation usage when employees took partial vacation days.

The matter proceeded via an Expedited Mediation-Arbitration Protocol.

The Vice-Chair found no violation, concluding that the employer's method of pro-rating was consistent with the collective agreement and policies, despite confusion caused by a message on employee pay stubs.

The main issue was dismissed, but the union was granted 30 days to raise any individual calculation errors with the employer.

The grievor filed a grievance alleging she had not been given proper service credit when she was rehired by the Ministry in 2006, after a previous severance of employment.

The employer argued that because her employment had been severed, she had no collective agreement rights to service credits, making the decision an exercise of management discretion.

The Vice-Chair agreed and dismissed the grievance.

The grievor claimed she was unfairly treated when her entire overtime shift was cancelled after she called in a day early to advise she would be two hours late.

She alleged another employee was accommodated when calling in late just prior to a shift.

The employer argued that employees do not have a right to accept only part of an overtime shift and that responding to unavoidable lateness is a matter of employer discretion.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance following an expedited mediation-arbitration protocol.

The union sought rulings on several issues regarding the grievor's reinstatement and compensation.

The arbitrator denied the grievor's claim for credit card interest, utility charges, and costs associated with cashing in an RRSP, finding that the collective agreement's interest provision comprehensively covered the issue.

The arbitrator ruled that the grievor should be reimbursed for any EI late payment penalties incurred by the employer.

Claims regarding premium payments during an interim unassigned period were deferred pending a future ruling on the appropriateness of the grievor's eventual assignment.

The employer was ordered to provide a detailed explanation of the grievor's T4 and retro pay allocation to address tax burden concerns.

The grievor requested an additional five days of compassionate leave to deal with issues related to the settlement of her mother's estate, having already been granted three days of bereavement leave and three days of compassionate leave.

The employer denied the request on the basis that there was no urgent or compelling need to resolve the estate issues on the requested days.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding no violation of the collective agreement.

The union filed a grievance alleging a poisoned work environment after a coworker made a derogatory comment about the grievor.

The employer investigated the incident, and the coworker acknowledged the inappropriateness of the comment and offered an apology.

The grievor declined both the apology and the employer's offer of mediation.

The Vice-Chair awarded the grievor one day of pay in lieu, noting the incident was part of a difficult long-term relationship and cautioning that future failure to participate in mediation could impact further compensation claims.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of a flexible part-time courtroom clerk, alleging that the employer violated the collective agreement by scheduling her for four days per week instead of five, unilaterally altering her posted schedule, and cancelling shifts to avoid overtime.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the employer's scheduling practices were consistent with its obligation to make reasonable efforts to ensure employees meet their minimum annual hours and its right to manage the schedule to avoid overtime.

The grievor failed to appear at the scheduled grievance arbitration hearing.

With the agreement of the parties, the Grievance Settlement Board ordered that the grievances would be deemed dismissed in two weeks unless the union provided submissions with reasonable justification for the grievor's absence.

The parties engaged in an Expedited Mediation-Arbitration Protocol to resolve multiple grievances.

The Vice-Chair reviewed the submissions and concluded that some grievances had merit while others did not.

The employer was ordered to pay the grievor $1,500 as sick pay top-up, remove letters of counsel from the grievor's file, review the ADI policy with managers, and arrange for mediation between the grievor and affected managers.

The union filed a group grievance on behalf of correctional officers at the Central North Correctional Centre (CNCC), alleging the employer violated the collective agreement by failing to offer them early retirement packages following the closure of the Walkerton and Owen Sound Jails.

The grievors argued that past practice dictated they should be offered early retirement to make room for displaced employees.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the movement of officers was done in accordance with Appendix 13 of the collective agreement and that nothing obliged the employer to offer early retirement to officers at CNCC.

The union filed grievances alleging that the employer failed to pay the grievor overtime.

The matter proceeded under an Expedited Mediation-Arbitration Protocol.

Following a review of the parties' submissions and the collective agreement, the arbitrator allowed the grievances in part and ordered the employer to pay the grievor 18 hours' pay.

The union filed grievances alleging the employer failed to compensate the grievor for overtime and related payments while on suspension with pay.

The matter proceeded under an Expedited Mediation-Arbitration Protocol.

The Vice-Chair allowed the grievances in part and ordered the employer to pay the grievor $1,000.

The grievor, a Correctional Officer, filed five grievances alleging she was improperly denied a transitional job trade that would have allowed her to retire with six months of non-working notice or an equivalent lump sum payment.

The parties had agreed to facilitate job trades to assist job-threatened employees, with matches based on seniority.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the Employer and Union were entitled to enter into the cross-ministerial agreement and that the successful candidate had more seniority than the grievor.

The grievances were denied.

The grievor's position as an Electronic Publisher became surplus due to the modernization of the branch website, which allowed staff to post information directly.

The union grieved, alleging that management misinformed the grievor by stating her duties would be transferred to the IT cluster, when in fact some duties were performed by branch staff.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the employer had the right to distribute duties under its management rights and that any gratuitous representation did not prevent the employer from exercising those rights differently, as no collective agreement right was adversely impacted.

The union filed a grievance alleging that the employer improperly changed a permanent full-time employee's shift to days and assigned the resulting vacant afternoon shift to a casual employee other than the grievor.

The grievor sought compensation for the 8-hour shift.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that the employer acted within its management rights to assign work.

The shift change was done with the consent of the permanent employee, and the vacant afternoon shift was properly assigned to the most senior casual employee in compliance with the collective agreement.

The grievor, a correctional officer, was terminated for his involvement in an incident where an inmate suffered significant injuries.

The Employer initiated an investigation and subsequently terminated the grievor for unauthorized use of force and failing to submit a proper occurrence report.

The grievor was later charged criminally with assault causing bodily harm.

The Union brought a motion to adjourn the arbitration proceedings pending the outcome of the criminal trial, arguing that the criminal conviction would be conclusive evidence and raising concerns about inconsistent results and the impact of the arbitration on the criminal proceedings.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the motion, finding that the expected delay of over a year was excessive and unreasonable for all parties.

In a grievance alleging unjust discipline and a poisoned work environment, the Union brought a motion for the disclosure of documents relating to a Workplace Discrimination and Harassment Prevention (WDHP) complaint filed by the grievor's supervisor against the same director.

The Employer opposed disclosure, arguing the documents constituted inadmissible similar fact evidence and were subject to a full and final settlement.

The Grievance Settlement Board granted the motion, holding that the documents were arguably relevant to the grievor's allegations of systemic discrimination and a poisoned work environment.

The Board distinguished between the threshold for disclosure and the stricter test for admissibility, which would be determined at a later stage.

The grievor, a long-service casual employee, requested a compassionate transfer in 1995.

The employer declined to transfer him with full seniority, requiring him to resign and be rehired as a new employee at the new location.

In 2010, the grievor filed a grievance challenging the 1995 decision and the loss of seniority.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding no evidence that the employer acted in an arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad faith manner, and noting the considerable delay between the move and the filing of the grievance.