OGSB 2012

The Employer raised a preliminary objection to the Board's jurisdiction, arguing that the Union's grievance was not referred to arbitration in a timely manner.

The Union argued that the failure to refer the grievance within the time limit was a procedural defect that the Employer waived by agreeing to a hearing date and not raising the objection until shortly before the hearing.

The Vice-Chair held that the time limit for referral to arbitration is a procedural matter, not a substantive one, and can be waived.

The Vice-Chair concluded that the Employer waived its objection by taking a 'fresh step' in scheduling the hearing without raising the timeliness issue.

The Employer's preliminary motion was dismissed.

The Union grieved the Employer's practice of not accruing vacation credits for employees on WSIB during months 4 to 9 of their absence.

The Collective Agreement provided that employees on WSIB for the first three months were on a paid leave of absence and accrued vacation credits, but after three months, they were paid directly by WSIB.

The Arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that under the Collective Agreement, employees only earn vacation credits when working or on a paid leave of absence.

The Arbitrator also rejected the Union's human rights argument, holding that it is not discriminatory to differentiate compensation between working employees and non-working employees off due to illness.

The grievor, a correctional officer, filed a grievance alleging discrimination on the basis of union activity in breach 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 arbitrator denied the grievance.

The union filed a grievance alleging the grievor was subjected to racial discrimination by co-workers and that management failed to take action.

After the union closed its case, the employer brought a motion for non-suit.

The Grievance Settlement Board applied the standard for non-suit motions, which requires determining whether the union adduced sufficient evidence to support its claim if its witnesses are believed.

The Board found the union's evidence was sufficient to require an answer from the employer and dismissed the non-suit motion.

The union filed grievances on behalf of several Caucasian correctional officers who were denied participation in a 'Race Matters' conference organized by the employer.

The conference was designed for employees who self-identify by race or colour, excluding Aboriginal peoples.

The grievors argued that the refusal to allow their participation was discriminatory and created a poisoned work environment.

The employer maintained it was entitled to hold conferences for specific racialized groups to discuss their experiences.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievances, finding no violation of the collective agreement, employment statute, or Ministry policy.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued a brief decision to clarify its previous decision dated April 18, 2012.

The Vice-Chair noted that the previous decision failed to explicitly state that the grievances dealt with were dismissed, and issued this decision to formally declare their dismissal.

The grievor, a correctional officer, filed a grievance alleging discrimination on the basis of union activity in breach 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 Grievance Settlement Board denied the grievance.

The grievor filed a grievance alleging the Employer improperly chose a union steward to represent him at an attendance management meeting and disclosed his status in the program to that steward, violating his privacy.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that the Employer cannot unilaterally choose a union representative for a grievor or notify a steward before the grievor has made their wishes known.

The Board awarded the grievor $200 in damages for the breach.

The union sought to withdraw a grievance alleging unjust dismissal on a 'without prejudice' basis, intending to pursue a related complaint before the Human Rights Tribunal.

The employer opposed the 'without prejudice' condition, arguing it was an abuse of process given the late stage of proceedings and previous rulings.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that the union was entitled to withdraw the grievance, but declined to attach either a 'with prejudice' or 'without prejudice' condition, leaving the consequences of the withdrawal to be determined by any future tribunal.

The grievor, a Rehabilitation Officer, filed a grievance regarding work assignment changes resulting from a WDHP complaint.

During an expedited mediation-arbitration process, the union requested information regarding the complaint, which was not provided.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the employer to provide the entire investigation file flowing from the WDHP complaint to the grievor and the union within three weeks.

In a grievance alleging harassment and discrimination in the filling of temporary positions outside the bargaining unit, the union sought to introduce evidence of facts underlying two previously settled grievances to establish a pattern of improper employer conduct.

The employer objected to the admission of this evidence.

The Grievance Settlement Board upheld the employer's objection, reaffirming the sanctity of settlements.

The Board found no 'special circumstances' or flagrant employer conduct that would justify an exception to the general rule against litigating the factual matrices of resolved grievances.

The grievor, a correctional facility employee, filed a grievance claiming call back pay after returning a phone call from her manager regarding missing keys.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that a short telephone discussion to inquire about missing keys did not constitute 'work' under the call back provisions of the Collective Agreement, as the grievor was not asked to perform normal job functions or give advice.

The union filed grievances alleging that the employer engaged in reprisals against a health and safety inspector for issuing orders contrary to management's wishes, violating section 50 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The employer raised a preliminary objection, arguing that an inspector is not a 'worker' and the Ministry is not an 'employer' under section 50 when the inspector is enforcing the Act regarding the safety of others.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the preliminary objection, finding that the statutory definitions apply and the inspector is a worker protected by section 50, though this does not isolate inspectors from management direction or discipline for failing to conform to standards.

The Employer requested the production of the grievor's medical records in relation to a grievance alleging a failure to accommodate a disability.

The Grievance Settlement Board found the records arguably relevant and ordered the Union to produce the grievor's psychiatric records and family physician's medical records pertaining to his psychiatric condition, subject to strict confidentiality conditions.

The union brought a preliminary motion requesting that the employer proceed first in a grievance arbitration concerning the transfer of an accommodated employee.

The grievor had been accommodated in a control room position for several years but was transferred to a newly created radio room position, which she alleged violated her medical restrictions due to claustrophobia.

The union argued the employer should proceed first because it possessed exclusive knowledge of the reasons for the transfer.

The arbitrator dismissed the motion, finding that the employer had placed the grievor in a position it asserted met her restrictions, and the union bore the onus of proving the new accommodation was unsuitable and that the employer violated the collective agreement and the Human Rights Code.

The grievor, a Correctional Officer, filed a grievance alleging that the employer breached several articles 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 grievance.

The grievor, a Finance and Administration Clerk, filed a grievance alleging the Employer violated the Collective Agreement by failing to convert her to classified status.

She claimed that while working as an OA8, she continued to perform some OA3 duties and had done so for over 18 months.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that her home position was OA8 and she was not performing the 'same work' for 18 months as required for conversion.

The union grieved that the employer violated the collective agreement by allowing managers to perform bargaining unit work, specifically receiving and investigating work refusals in correctional facilities.

At the conclusion of the union's case, the employer moved for a non-suit.

The Grievance Settlement Board granted the non-suit motion, finding that the union failed to adduce sufficient evidence to establish its claim of a uniform province-wide practice of assigning such triage work to bargaining unit personnel.

The parties engaged in a med/arb session regarding multiple grievances arising from operational changes, bed closures, and transfers following the establishment of the Ministry of Child and Youth Services.

The arbitrator issued a bottom-line decision resolving the outstanding grievances as agreed by the parties, without prejudice or precedent.

The grievor, a correctional officer, filed a grievance alleging the employer failed to pay his pay for performance (P4P) for the period of April 1, 2004 to March 31, 2005.

The parties referred the grievance to mediation/arbitration under the collective agreement and requested a decision without written reasons.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance.