OGSB 2012

The grievor, a Correctional Officer, received a three-day suspension for abuse of sick time.

The matter proceeded through the Expedited Mediation-Arbitration process.

The arbitrator found that while discipline was warranted, mitigating factors including the grievor's length of service and discipline-free record justified reducing the penalty.

The grievance was allowed in part, and the suspension was reduced to one day with compensation for two days' lost wages.

The Union sought interim relief to compel the Employer to provide Crown counsel with information that an inspector's discharge was being challenged at arbitration, in the context of a McNeil disclosure letter.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that the relief sought had essentially been obtained because the inspector's views, including the fact that his discharge was proceeding to arbitration, had already been put before the Crown.

The Grievor, a regular employee, was on a 12-month temporary assignment.

During the assignment, he was summonsed to testify at a Grievance Settlement Board hearing for a colleague.

On the day he provided his summons to management, he was informed that the incumbent of the position he was backfilling was returning early, but his 12-month assignment would be honoured.

Ultimately, his assignment was not extended beyond the 12 months, while two other employees' assignments were.

The Union grieved, alleging the Employer's actions were tainted by anti-union animus and constituted a reprisal for his participation in the hearing.

The Board dismissed the grievance, finding no objective evidence of anti-union animus or discrimination, and accepting the Employer's operational reasons for its decisions.

The union grieved a one-day suspension imposed on a correctional officer for refusing an escort duty post and insubordination.

The matter proceeded through an expedited mediation-arbitration process.

The arbitrator found that while discipline was warranted due to poor communication and misunderstanding, a one-day suspension was too harsh.

The grievance was allowed in part, with the suspension reduced to a letter of reprimand and the grievor reimbursed for one day's pay.

The union filed a grievance alleging that the employer mismanaged HPRO, causing a poisoned work environment.

The matter proceeded through an expedited mediation-arbitration process.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the union and the grievor to provide the employer with full particulars within 45 days, failing which the grievance would be dismissed.

The Union brought an application requesting that the Employer be ordered to proceed first in a mediation-arbitration concerning a lay-off grievance and subsequent bumping grievances.

The Union alleged bad faith, claiming the grievor was targeted.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the application, holding that established jurisprudence requires the party making allegations of bad faith to proceed first so the responding party can adequately respond.

The grievor failed to attend the scheduled arbitration hearing and failed to comply with prior Board orders requiring the production of specific medical evidence to justify his previous absences.

The Union requested another adjournment, providing only a clinic prescription note and a referral request, which the Board found inadequate.

The Board denied the adjournment request, noted the Union's case as closed since it had no other witnesses, and directed the matter to proceed to argument on the merits.

The union requested a full, independent investigation into the provenance of anonymous racist letters that created a poisoned work environment at a correctional facility.

The appointed investigator provided a report, but the union was not satisfied and reiterated its request.

In preparation for the hearing on this request, the Grievance Settlement Board ordered the employer to confirm whether any other forensic behavioural profiles existed and to provide a detailed written summary of the steps taken to investigate a specific handwritten letter found in 2010.

The union filed a group grievance on behalf of seasonal employees regarding overtime equalization.

The union argued that after full-time employees were offered a first overtime shift, the second consecutive overtime shift should have been offered to seasonal employees before being offered to full-time employees.

The employer relied on the collective agreement, which required overtime to be offered first to full-time employees on a rotational basis, and a memorandum of agreement that prevented employees from working more than two full shifts in a 24-hour period.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance.

The Employer requested particulars and disclosure from the Union in relation to multiple grievances.

Following a hearing, the Grievance Settlement Board ordered the Union to provide the requested information within 60 days.

The Board noted that failure to comply could result in the Employer bringing a motion to dismiss the grievances.

The Grievance Settlement Board determined the remedial consequences of its prior finding that the preparation and certification of transcripts by court reporters is bargaining unit work.

The Board established a graduated page-per-hour rate for transcript production based on experience.

It dismissed the union's claim that the grievor should have been converted to full-time status, finding the employer had not determined a continuing need for full-time work.

The Board also held that the grievor was generally not entitled to premium payments like overtime or shift premiums unless specifically authorized.

Finally, the Board ruled that transcript income earned under regulation must be offset against any wages owed, but rejected the employer's argument that it should benefit from the grievor's tax savings as an independent contractor.

During the hearing of grievances regarding the employer's alleged failure to accommodate the grievor's disability, an evidentiary dispute arose.

The Union sought to put two documents to a management witness during cross-examination and to call reply evidence based on his responses.

The Employer objected to the admission of the documents and the proposed reply evidence.

The Vice-Chair exercised his discretion to permit the Union to put the documents to the witness and to call the reply evidence, noting that relevance and weight would be determined later.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of a fixed-term correctional officer alleging a violation of the collective agreement following an incident where a manager made offending comments over a two-way radio.

The grievor claimed compensation for days absent from work following the incident.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that while the manager's comments were foolishly stated, they did not identify the grievor, and the facts did not establish a breach of the collective agreement.

The grievors, customer service representatives, alleged that the employer violated the collective agreement by failing to distribute overtime equitably for weekends, holidays, and evenings.

The parties referred the matter to mediation/arbitration and requested a decision without precedent, prejudice, or written reasons.

The arbitrator denied the grievances.

Following a previous decision, the Grievance Settlement Board ordered the employer to pay the grievor $13,000 less mandatory deductions.

The employer was also ordered to cease any payroll deductions for the grievor's absences between March 18, 2009, and their last day of work at the Toronto East Detention Centre.

The union filed a group grievance alleging that the employer failed to distribute overtime in a fair and equitable manner, contrary to Article 8 of the collective agreement.

The parties referred the grievance to mediation/arbitration and requested a decision without precedent or prejudice, and without written reasons.

The Vice-Chair denied the grievances.

The union grieved the employer's decision to deny the grievor an interview for a Regional Program Officer position.

The employer screened applicants based on criteria derived from the job specifications, placing significant weight on computer skills and environmental knowledge.

The grievor scored 43%, below the 60% threshold required for an interview.

The arbitrator found that the employer's screening criteria and weighting were reasonable and consistent with the job duties.

Although the arbitrator adjusted the grievor's scores slightly upward for certain criteria, the revised score still fell below the threshold.

The grievance was dismissed.

The Union filed grievances alleging the Ministry breached Article 45.1 of the Collective Agreement by failing to provide accurate quarterly reports of vacation and attendance credits.

The Ministry admitted the breach, which was caused by a new computer tracking system.

The arbitrator found that the grievors spent personal time reviewing their records and corresponding with payroll personnel to correct the inaccuracies.

The arbitrator awarded each of the 11 grievors one hour of pay as compensation for the personal time spent dealing with the issue.

The Association brought a motion seeking a declaration that a grievance regarding the complainant's termination had been settled during mediation.

The parties had agreed on most terms, but the employer insisted on a 'no application clause' which the Association rejected.

The Association made a counter-offer excluding the clause, which the employer rejected before ultimately withdrawing its offer to settle.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the motion, finding that no consensus ad idem had been reached on the terms of a settlement before the employer revoked its offer.

The union filed a policy grievance alleging the employer violated the collective agreement's employment stability provisions regarding temporary assignments for surplus employees.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss portions of the claim for failing to establish a prima facie case.

The arbitrator dismissed the employer's motion regarding the union's claim that the employer must track and match temporary assignments, and the claim that surplus employees should be considered when fixed-term contracts are renewed.

However, the arbitrator allowed the employer's motion to dismiss the union's claim that surplus employees have displacement rights over fixed-term or acting employees, finding no basis for such rights in the collective agreement.