OGSB 2012

A correctional officer filed a grievance alleging the employer breached multiple 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 Correctional Officer, filed a grievance alleging the employer breached Articles 2 and 9 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.

A Correctional Officer filed a grievance alleging the employer breached Articles 2, 3, and 9 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 on behalf of an unclassified correctional officer who was mistakenly offered a rollover to classified (full-time) status, which was rescinded hours later due to a break in service at the institution.

The union argued the employer could not rescind the offer and had violated the proper process for rollovers.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that the employer made a bona fide error in offering the position and was entitled to correct it.

Furthermore, the employer did not violate the collective agreement or any memorandum of settlement by establishing the condition that an employee must have worked at the institution for at least a year to be eligible for a rollover.

The employer raised a preliminary objection arguing that the union was improperly attempting to expand the scope of a policy grievance regarding a job posting.

The union initially argued that the grievor should have been awarded the position based on seniority, but later sought to argue in the alternative that the employer exercised its discretion in an arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad faith manner.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the employer's objection, finding that the union was still relying on the same collective agreement provision and that the alternative argument was inherent in the proper interpretation and application of that provision.

The grievor filed a grievance claiming call back pay after a supervisor telephoned her at home to discuss a workplace issue.

The Employer argued that call back pay was not warranted because the grievor was not required to, and did not, return to the workplace.

The Grievance Settlement Board agreed with the Employer and dismissed the grievance in an expedited mediation-arbitration decision without reasons.

The union applied for interim relief to direct the employer to treat certain employees as included in the bargaining unit pending the arbitration of their exclusion due to organizational changes.

The union argued that the employees would lose job security rights if laid off while excluded.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the application, finding that the alleged harm was entirely speculative as no employees had been identified for layoff, and that the Board had the capacity to fashion an appropriate remedy if necessary.

The Union filed grievances alleging the Employer violated the collective agreement by failing to provide incentive pay to staff divested through the sales tax reform project, similar to what was provided during a previous corporate tax divestment.

The Employer brought a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, arguing there was no collective agreement provision requiring such incentive pay.

The Grievance Settlement Board agreed with the Employer, finding the claim was a 'me too' argument without a link to a substantial right under the collective agreement, and dismissed the grievances for lack of jurisdiction.

The grievor, a Correctional Officer, filed five grievances alleging violations of the Collective Agreement.

The parties participated in an Expedited Mediation-Arbitration process.

The unresolved grievances were brought before the Grievance Settlement Board.

The Board dismissed the grievances without reasons, in accordance with the negotiated Protocol.

The grievors, two correctional officers with over a decade of discipline-free service, received three-day suspensions for receiving and forwarding an offensive email contrary to the employer's workplace discrimination and harassment policy.

The union conceded that discipline was warranted but argued the penalty was too severe given the grievors' seniority and clean records.

The arbitrator found that while the employer's effort to deter such conduct was understandable, insufficient weight was given to mitigating factors, including the grievors' forthrightness and lack of prior discipline.

The grievances were allowed in part, and the suspensions were reduced to one day.

The grievor, a fixed-term Correctional Officer, filed two grievances alleging improper scheduling, bullying, and harassment by the Employer.

The matter was heard through an expedited mediation-arbitration process.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievances, finding that the grievor had signed a contract agreeing to be available for up to 40 hours per week, and the Employer was entitled to rely on that agreement in its scheduling.

The grievor, a Correctional Officer, was discharged.

In a previous decision, the Grievance Settlement Board substituted a suspension for the discharge and directed the parties to agree on its length.

The parties could not agree, with the employer seeking a 10-month suspension and the union proposing six months.

The Board determined that a six-month suspension was appropriate, finding it sufficient for deterrence and corrective purposes, and ordered the grievor to be made whole for the period between the end of the suspension and his return to work.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of a correctional officer, alleging the employer violated the collective agreement by arbitrarily assigning him to take December 27 and 28, 2010, off as paid holidays for Christmas and Boxing Day.

The employer maintained that because the holidays fell on the grievor's regular days off (Saturday and Sunday), the paid holidays were appropriately scheduled on the following Monday and Tuesday.

The grievance was heard through an expedited mediation-arbitration process.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance.

The Union alleged the Employer breached the Human Rights Code by failing to accommodate the grievor's family status during a mandatory Staff Learning Day.

The grievor had an ongoing accommodation for her work hours, but the Employer temporarily changed the hours for the event.

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

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the grievor failed to clearly communicate her need for accommodation to her manager, relying instead on general emails sent in her capacity as a union steward.

As clear communication of the request is an essential element of a failure to accommodate claim, the Union failed to make out a prima facie case.

The grievance was dismissed.

The employer brought a motion to dismiss the union's grievance on the basis that the particulars failed to establish a prima facie case of a collective agreement violation.

The grievance alleged violations of several articles, including bad faith in the exercise of management rights and loss of on-call pay due to a change in the grievor's position.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the collective agreement did not obligate the employer to assign on-call duty, and the particulars did not disclose objective facts capable of establishing bad faith.

The employer's motion was granted and the grievance was dismissed.

The employer brought a motion for disclosure and particulars in a grievance arbitration concerning the grievor's termination.

The employer alleged the grievor was dismissed for knowingly using a falsified pay stub to obtain a mortgage.

The union claimed the grievor was unaware of the falsified document.

The Vice-Chair ordered the union to disclose the grievor's mortgage applications and related documents, finding them highly relevant to the core issue.

The Vice-Chair also ordered the union to provide particulars of its allegations of discriminatory conduct by the employer.

The grievor, a Correctional Officer, filed a grievance claiming the employer should have compensated him for attending a medal presentation.

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, finding no violation of the collective agreement.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of the grievor alleging harassment and discrimination based on disability.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the grievance, filed more than nine years after the events in question, was untimely.

The union argued the grievor was incapable of filing earlier due to severe mental illness and requested an extension under s. 48(16) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that while the grievor suffered from a debilitating mental illness, she had been capable of pursuing a WSIB claim regarding the same events during the delay period.

The Board concluded the union failed to establish a reasonable explanation for the delay and declined to extend the time limit.

The grievance was dismissed as untimely.

The grievor, a Correctional Officer, was discharged for violating the Workplace Discrimination and Harassment Policy (WDHP).

The union grieved the discharge, arguing the penalty was excessive compared to other employees who committed similar violations but were only suspended.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that while the grievor's violations were more significant, the essential nature of the violations was not so qualitatively different as to warrant discharge.

The Board declined to sustain the discharge and remitted the matter to the parties to agree on an appropriate suspension.

Following a mediation/arbitration process under the collective agreement, the Grievance Settlement Board directed the employer to reinstate seven vacation days to the grievor's bank and to reimburse her $5,000 for medical expenses upon production of receipts.