OGSB 2012

Following the announcement of the closure of the Owen Sound Jail, the grievor and five others filed grievances alleging the Employer violated the Collective Agreement by improperly constituting a decommissioning team.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievances, finding no violation of the Collective Agreement or any other relevant document or statute.

The grievor, an Application Analyst with 10 years of service, was terminated for insubordination after a series of progressive disciplines (suspensions ranging from 1 to 20 days).

The employer alleged she repeatedly failed to attend mandatory meetings, provide weekly status reports, and complete assignments, while taking unauthorized medical leaves.

The union argued the conduct was non-culpable due to stress from her mother's illness and perceived harassment by her supervisor.

The Grievance Settlement Board found the employer established insubordination, noting the grievor's intentional disregard for her supervisor's authority and failure to correct her behaviour despite numerous warnings.

The grievance was dismissed.

The union requested disclosure of various documents related to a job competition for an Employment Standards Officer position, alleging the grievor was improperly denied an interview and screened out due to age.

The employer agreed to provide some documents but resisted others.

The arbitrator ruled that documents relating to the competition after the interview screening process were not arguably relevant to the issue of whether the grievor was improperly denied an interview.

The request for the ages of all applicants was denied as there was no evidence the employer had this information.

The union filed grievances alleging that the employer's reorganization and reclassification of employees created a poisoned work environment due to misleading communications.

The employer raised preliminary objections, arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction over classification grievances under s. 51 of the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act, and that the matter was already settled by a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA).

The Grievance Settlement Board upheld the preliminary objections, finding it had no jurisdiction to remedy classification grievances and that the parties had already reached a binding agreement regarding the reorganization's impact.

The grievances were dismissed.

The grievor, a Worker Advisor, suffered a compensable workplace injury and returned to work on permanent modified duties working half-days.

The Employer converted her status to part-time and reduced its contributions to her health and welfare benefits accordingly.

The Union grieved, arguing that under the collective agreement, an employee in receipt of a WSIB award is entitled to continued benefit subsidies at the full-time level regardless of a reduction in hours.

The Grievance Settlement Board agreed, finding that the specific collective agreement provision protected the grievor's full-time benefit entitlements.

The Board also found the grievor was entitled to full salary for the first 65 days of her absence and directed the parties to calculate the amounts owing.

The grievor, an Enforcement Service Representative at the Family Responsibility Office, was discharged for dishonesty on two occasions.

First, he misrepresented the circumstances surrounding criminal charges (fraud and breach of trust) discovered during a criminal record check, falsely claiming they arose from a misunderstanding over filing tax returns without written authorization.

Second, he requested a leave of absence ostensibly to care for his ill mother, but the leave coincided with his sentencing to 18 months in jail for the criminal charges.

The arbitrator found the grievor was dishonest in both instances, irreparably damaging the employment relationship, and upheld the discharge.

The union filed individual grievances alleging the employer failed to pay call-back pay as required by the collective agreement.

The parties agreed to have the Grievance Settlement Board rule on a preliminary interpretative issue based on assumed facts regarding whether the grievors, who had flexible start times within a designated window, had a 'next scheduled shift' within the meaning of the call-back pay provision.

The Board adopted a purposive approach and concluded that the grievors did have a next scheduled shift, remitting the matter back to the parties.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued a procedural decision establishing a case management process for a policy grievance and 147 individual grievances concerning the implementation of flex-time language in the collective agreement.

The parties agreed that the Vice-Chair would take jurisdiction over the individual grievances, which would be heard at the grievors' work locations following a specific expedited process involving will-say statements.

The policy grievance will be heard in parallel proceedings.

The parties sought an interpretation of a Memorandum of Settlement regarding a $20,000 retraining allowance.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the parties intended for the grievor to receive the $20,000 lump sum without any deductions whatsoever.

The union filed a policy grievance challenging the employer's posting of vacancies for a new Work Transition Specialist position, which required an undergraduate degree and the ability to acquire professional certification.

The union argued the employer violated the collective agreement and past practice by failing to consider equivalency for bargaining unit employees who lacked these formal credentials.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the employer had the right to establish minimum qualifications, the requirements reasonably related to the work, and there was no evidence of bad faith.

The Association filed grievances alleging that the Employer's reorganization, which eliminated Facilities Management Coordinator positions and created new Regional Planning & Business Advisor positions, was done in bad faith or, alternatively, that the new positions were substantially the same as the old ones.

The Employer brought a motion objecting to the Board's jurisdiction to hear the alternative argument, asserting the new positions were newly created and thus exempt from posting exceptions.

The Board dismissed the motion, finding it had jurisdiction to determine objectively whether the positions were substantially the same.

The Board also granted the Association's request for pre-hearing production of the new incumbents' work emails and calendars, limiting the scope to a three-month period to balance relevance against the Employer's burden.

The grievor, a fixed-term OAG 8 employee at the Central East Correctional Centre, filed a grievance claiming she should have been rolled over into a permanent position following a retirement in September 2008.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the vacant OAG 8 position was not filled.

Instead, due to additional funding and operational requirements, the position was changed to an AGA 15, to which the grievor had no entitlement.

The grievance was dismissed.

The union filed a grievance alleging the employer violated the collective agreement by hiring new fixed-term employees for a temporary exhibit without posting the positions.

The employer raised a preliminary objection, arguing the union's particulars did not establish a prima facie case.

The Grievance Settlement Board agreed, finding that the collective agreement did not oblige the employer to post temporary assignments of less than six months.

The employer's motion to dismiss the grievance was granted.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of a fixed-term correctional officer, alleging the employer violated the collective agreement by failing to roll over his status to classified during a restructuring transition.

The grievor claimed he should have been classified at the Toronto West Detention Centre (TWDC) based on his seniority.

The arbitrator found that under the applicable Memorandum of Agreement, the grievor was not eligible for a rollover at TWDC because he had not been employed there for the required one-year period.

Furthermore, he did not have sufficient hours to qualify for a rollover at his previous institution.

The grievance was dismissed.