OGSB 2013

The grievor, a Correctional Officer, filed a grievance alleging the employer breached the collective agreement by unreasonably requesting sick notes for absences.

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

The arbitrator found no violation of the collective agreement and dismissed the grievance.

The grievor failed to attend the scheduled arbitration hearing regarding his termination for abandoning his position.

The union requested an adjournment sine die, citing suspected substance abuse issues, or alternatively a brief adjournment to locate the grievor.

The employer opposed an indefinite adjournment and sought dismissal if strict conditions were not met.

The Grievance Settlement Board denied the adjournment sine die but granted a three-week adjournment to allow the union to provide medical documentation of a disability and a written undertaking from the grievor to participate in future proceedings.

The grievor, a coach technician, was terminated for taking four litres of windshield washer fluid from the employer's garage for personal use after being explicitly told by his supervisor to put it back.

The union grieved the termination, arguing the conduct did not amount to theft and that discharge was an excessive penalty.

The arbitrator found that the grievor committed theft, as he took the fluid for his own benefit despite knowing he was not entitled to do so.

Applying a contextual approach to discipline, the arbitrator upheld the discharge, noting the grievor's lack of candour, absence of necessity, prior disciplinary record, and failure to accept responsibility.

The grievance was dismissed.

A med-arb session was held to resolve numerous outstanding overtime grievances between the union and the employer within the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services.

In accordance with the parties' Memorandum of Agreement, the Vice-Chair issued a decision without reasons, detailing the disposition of 40 individual grievances.

The majority of the grievances were dismissed, while several were allowed with specific hours of overtime awarded.

The grievor, a correctional officer, grieved that the employer breached the collective agreement by issuing discipline without just cause.

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

The Vice-Chair found no violation of the collective agreement and dismissed the grievance.

The union referred two grievances to arbitration nearly two years after the employer denied them at Stage Two.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the referral was outside the 15-day time limit in the collective agreement.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that, pursuant to section 48(16) of the Labour Relations Act and established jurisprudence, it has no jurisdiction to extend the time limits for referring a grievance to arbitration.

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

The union filed a group grievance on behalf of four supervisory Ambulance Communications Officers alleging that the employer breached a Compressed Work Week Agreement by changing their scheduled rotation pattern.

The employer extended weekend shifts from eight to twelve hours and required supervisors to rotate through different platoons every four weeks.

The arbitrator found that the language of the agreement was permissive and did not restrict the employer's management rights to assign employees to shifts or vary the schedule.

The grievance was dismissed.

The union brought a motion seeking additional remedial orders to enforce a previous Grievance Settlement Board decision that declared court reporters performing transcription work were bargaining unit employees.

The union alleged the employer failed to comply with the prior orders and sought orders compelling individual managers to comply or appear before the Board to explain the non-compliance.

The employer objected on jurisdictional grounds.

The Board dismissed the motion, holding that it lacks statutory authority to enforce its own orders.

Under section 48(19) of the Labour Relations Act, enforcement of arbitration decisions is exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Superior Court of Justice, and the Board's retention of jurisdiction for implementation disputes did not empower it to enforce its final and binding orders.

The union filed a grievance alleging that the grievor, an employee of the Windsor Central Ambulance Communications Centre, was improperly scheduled for shifts, resulting in 160 hours of lost time.

Following an expedited hearing, the Grievance Settlement Board issued a ruling without reasons, ordering the employer to compensate the grievor for the 160 hours of lost time and to schedule her for shifts pursuant to standard procedures going forward.

Two classified Correctional Officers filed grievances alleging the Employer violated the Collective Agreement by failing to include hours they worked at the Central North Correctional Centre (CNCC) in the calculation of their continuous service dates.

The grievors had worked at CNCC while it was privately operated by MTC, and resigned to work for the Ontario Public Service.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievances, finding that MTC was a private company and the grievors were not Ontario Public Service employees during that time.

Therefore, the hours worked for MTC could not be included in their continuous service dates.

The employer sought to sever the Papple grievance from the Malboeuf and group grievances, arguing it should be heard first.

The union submitted all three should be heard together.

The Board found that while all grievances broadly raised the issue of whether travel was personal or business, the legal issues and required interpretations differed significantly.

The Board concluded that efficiency favoured the employer's position and ordered the Papple grievance to be heard first.

The Union requested an order directing the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) to produce the complete investigation file relating to a complaint of sexual assault made by the Grievor.

The Grievance Settlement Board granted the request and ordered the OPP to produce the file to Union counsel, subject to conditions including the redaction of personal information of non-parties, confidential law enforcement material, and privileged information, and restricting the use of the records to the current proceeding.

The Union grieved the Employer's scheduling practices under a Compressed Work Week Agreement at the Elgin Middlesex Detention Centre.

The parties asked the Grievance Settlement Board to determine two questions regarding staffing levels.

The Board held that the agreement requires the Employer to schedule 147 classified Correctional Officer positions per day and make every effort to backfill them if absent.

However, the Board found that the agreement does not restrict the Employer's management right to assign those officers to duties outside the building, such as escort duties, during their shifts.

Six Correctional Officers grieved that the Employer violated the Collective Agreement by failing to convert them from fixed-term to classified status after performing the same work for over eighteen months.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievances, finding it lacked jurisdiction.

The Board applied a previous decision which held that a 2008 Memorandum of Agreement barred the advancement of conversion grievances during the term of the Collective Agreement.

The union filed a grievance claiming that the cost of a psychological assessment for a member's child, which resulted in an autism diagnosis, should be reimbursed at 100% as a diagnostic procedure under the collective agreement.

The employer had reimbursed the claim under the capped provision for psychological services.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that while the assessment was a diagnostic procedure, the collective agreement and a subsequent implementation agreement intended for the cap on psychological services to apply to such procedures when performed by a psychologist.

The grievance was dismissed.

The grievor, a Correctional Officer, elected a non-working notice period when surplussed.

He alleged he injured his knee during this period but did not notify the Employer or request sick leave until after the notice period had concluded.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that because the grievor failed to report the injury during the notice period, he was not entitled to sick leave benefits.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued a procedural decision regarding a grievance concerning confidentiality under the Attendance Support and Management Program Policy (ASMPP).

The Board confirmed its authority to address issues related to how medical records are sought, maintained, and used, as well as how employees are notified about the program.

The employer was directed that it is not required to respond to 31 questions previously requested, and a further conference call will be scheduled to determine the next steps.

The union requested an adjournment of the hearing because the grievor was on long-term income protection and his illness prevented him from assisting in the preparation of his case.

The employer opposed the request, citing significant delay and diminishing witness recall.

The Grievance Settlement Board granted a six-month adjournment to balance the prejudice to the parties and allow the grievor an opportunity to participate in the litigation.

The union requested an adjournment of several continuation dates because the grievor had moved out of the province and had difficulty obtaining time off from his new job.

The employer did not object to the adjournment, provided its liability for the delay was limited.

The Vice-Chair granted the adjournment and ordered that the employer would not be responsible for any compensation accruing to the grievor during the period of delay.

The Employer brought a preliminary motion arguing that the parties had reached a binding agreement to settle the union's grievance during mediation.

The Union argued that no final agreement had been reached because substantive issues remained unresolved and the grievor had not signed the draft agreement.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that a meeting of the minds on all substantive issues had occurred by the end of the mediation session, and the subsequent communications were merely drafting exercises.

The Board held that the agreement was binding and enforceable, noting that grievor consent is not legally required to finalize a settlement unless explicitly made a condition.