OGSB 2012

The Union filed a grievance alleging the Employer violated the collective agreement when filling a temporary vacancy.

The parties engaged in a mediation-arbitration process.

The arbitrator found that the Employer placed an applicant in a temporary vacancy but failed to notify the Local Union President ten working days prior to filling the vacancy, as required by Article 6.1.2 of the collective agreement.

A declaration was issued that the Employer violated the notice requirement.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of a correctional officer regarding the calculation of his Continuous Service Date (CSD).

The Grievance Settlement Board conducted a preliminary review of the grievor's employment record and found that not all hours were properly counted.

The Board ordered the parties to agree upon a mutually acceptable person to conduct a thorough review of the grievor's work record to ascertain uncounted hours, with the review to be completed within 90 days.

The union filed a grievance alleging unjust discipline and missed overtime resulting from the discipline.

The matter proceeded under an Expedited Mediation-Arbitration Protocol.

The Vice-Chair allowed the grievance, ordering the employer to expunge the discipline, make the grievor whole for the suspension period, and pay 12 hours of overtime.

The union filed a grievance alleging unjust discipline.

The parties proceeded under an Expedited Mediation-Arbitration Protocol.

The Vice-Chair allowed the grievance, ordering the discipline removed from the grievor's files and that she be made whole for the period of the suspension.

The parties sought clarification on the implementation of a Memorandum of Settlement regarding when the grievors became entitled to the Short Term Sickness Plan.

The Employer argued the twenty-day qualifying period began after the signing of the agreement in November 2011.

The Union argued it began on the retroactive effective date of August 16, 2010, when the grievors became Regular employees.

The arbitrator agreed with the Union, finding nothing in the agreement restricted their rights to the plan, and the qualifying period began on August 16, 2010.

The grievor, a nurse consultant, was denied long-term disability (LTD) benefits by the insurer and placed on an unpaid leave of absence by the employer.

She sued the insurer and reached a settlement for arrears and future benefits.

The union grieved, arguing the settlement reinstated her status as an employee in receipt of LTD benefits, entitling her to collective agreement benefits like vacation and pension credits.

The Grievance Settlement Board allowed the grievance in part, finding the settlement arrears constituted LTD benefits up to the settlement date, but the future lump sum payment was in lieu of benefits, meaning she was on an unpaid leave of absence thereafter.

The union filed a grievance alleging the employer failed to convert the grievor.

The matter proceeded under an Expedited Mediation-Arbitration Protocol.

After reviewing the submissions, the Vice-Chair dismissed the grievance.

The union filed grievances alleging that the employer failed to allow the grievors the right to rejoin the ICIT Team.

The matter proceeded under an Expedited Mediation-Arbitration Protocol.

After reviewing the submissions of the parties and the collective agreement, the Vice-Chair dismissed the grievances.

The union filed a grievance alleging the employer failed to allow the grievor three days' compassionate leave.

The matter proceeded via an Expedited Mediation-Arbitration Protocol.

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

The Union filed grievances on behalf of 28 Correctional Officers alleging the Employer violated the Collective Agreement by failing to fill eleven RPM positions in a timely fashion.

The Employer argued the positions were unfunded and therefore not vacant, and that management has broad rights to determine the workforce.

The Grievance Settlement Board agreed with the Employer, finding no violation of the Collective Agreement or any other agreement, and dismissed the grievances.

The grievor, a Maintenance Mechanic 3, alleged that he should have been called in to fix a jammed lock on an interview room door, arguing that the situation constituted a health and safety breach.

The employer disputed the health and safety violation and argued there was no breach of the collective agreement.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance in an expedited mediation-arbitration process without reasons, as per the negotiated protocol.

The grievor, a correctional officer, was terminated for failing to disclose his relationships with several inmates and individuals with criminal records, and for attempting to use his position to facilitate an inmate's transfer to a minimum-security facility.

The union grieved the termination, arguing the conflict of interest policy was unclear and the penalty was discriminatory.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding the grievor's testimony entirely lacking in credibility and his innocent explanations fabricated.

The Board held that the grievor's association with criminals and failure to disclose such relationships went to the core of his duties as a peace officer, justifying termination.

In a grievance arbitration concerning whether agency staff were performing bargaining unit work at a specific court, the parties agreed to proceed first with the issue at that specific court.

The employer sought to introduce evidence regarding the work performed by similar staff at other courts across the province.

The union objected, arguing the evidence was irrelevant and contrary to their agreement to focus on the single court.

The arbitrator dismissed the union's objection, finding the evidence arguably relevant to determining what constitutes bargaining unit work, and noting the agreement did not explicitly preclude such evidence.

The union filed grievances relating to bonus payments for attendance and stat on a stat.

The matter proceeded under an Expedited Mediation-Arbitration Protocol.

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

The grievor, a fixed-term Correctional Officer, filed a grievance alleging the Employer violated the Collective Agreement during a facility restructuring process.

The grievor elected to transfer his contract to a different facility but later learned that officers who chose a different option were subsequently offered lateral transfers to a third facility.

The grievor argued the rollover process lacked transparency and that he would have made a different choice had he known of future opportunities.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that while the grievor's choice was unfortunate in hindsight, the Employer's actions did not violate the Collective Agreement or any transition agreements.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss a series of grievances filed by correctional officers, arguing that because no discipline was ultimately imposed following an investigation into a work stoppage, the issues were moot and there was no live controversy.

The Grievance Settlement Board reviewed the grievances and found that several alleged ongoing harassment, discrimination, and reprisal for exercising health and safety rights, rather than merely seeking the removal of disciplinary letters.

Applying the doctrine of mootness, the Board concluded that these allegations constituted a live controversy between the parties.

The employer's motion to dismiss was therefore dismissed, and the matters were ordered to proceed to hearing.

The union filed two grievances on behalf of a retired maintenance mechanic.

The first alleged verbal assault by a manager, and the second alleged discipline without just cause regarding a 20-day suspension for failing to renew a gas license certificate.

The matter proceeded via expedited mediation-arbitration.

The arbitrator dismissed the harassment grievance but found the 20-day suspension excessive, reducing it to a 7-day suspension and ordering compensation for the remaining 13 days.

The Union filed a local group grievance alleging improper pay deductions for statutory holidays.

The Employer raised a preliminary objection that the grievance was untimely, as the issue arose in 2007.

The Union argued the delay was due to ongoing informal attempts to resolve the matter.

The Vice-Chair exercised discretion under section 48(16) of the Labour Relations Act to extend the time limits, finding that refusing to do so would create a disincentive for parties to attempt informal resolution.

The preliminary objection was dismissed and the matter remitted to the parties.

The grievor, an LCBO employee, sought a transfer from Toronto to Brampton and relief from Saturday shifts, alleging the commute aggravated a groin injury and interfered with his ability to care for his daughter and elderly parents.

He also alleged the transfer denial was a reprisal for past grievances and health and safety complaints.

At the close of the union's case, the employer brought a motion for non-suit.

The Grievance Settlement Board granted the non-suit motion, finding the union failed to present sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case of discrimination based on disability or family status, or to prove reprisal.

The grievor's refusal to provide his current residential address or details about alternative care options precluded a finding that the employer's actions seriously interfered with a substantial family obligation or violated his medical restrictions.

The parties in a grievance arbitration regarding surplus notice and bumping rights agreed on a disclosure protocol, except for one paragraph.

The Association sought to include a paragraph requiring the employer to provide a summary of reasons why the grievor was not eligible for positions identified by the Association.

The employer objected, arguing it improperly shifted the burden of proof and was premature.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the inclusion of the disputed paragraph, finding it would facilitate an efficient hearing and did not alter the burden of proof, as the employer's obligation would only be triggered after the Association provided its initial disclosure.