OGSB 2013

The parties held a conference call to discuss the scheduling and process for hearing multiple grievances filed by two correctional officers, including suspension and discharge grievances.

The parties agreed to a schedule for hearing the suspension grievances without counsel, followed by the discharge grievance with counsel, and the remaining grievances thereafter.

The Board issued a decision reflecting this agreement.

The Union filed a grievance alleging the Employer breached a prior Memorandum of Settlement regarding the Grievor's return to work.

The arbitrator found that an unknown person from the Provincial Government made an unauthorized phone call to the Grievor's doctor's office, improperly obtaining confidential medical appointment information.

This privacy breach caused the doctor to delay issuing a return-to-work certificate, resulting in the Grievor losing one week's wages.

The arbitrator held this was a clear breach of the Employer's duty to carry out the settlement in good faith.

The grievance was allowed, and the Grievor was awarded compensation for the lost week's wages plus $2,500 in damages for mental distress.

The parties sought clarification on three remedial issues following a prior decision finding that the Employer improperly treated Court Reporters as independent contractors for transcript production.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that while transcript production expenses should be factored into the make-whole remedy, the calculation must be done on an overall rather than year-by-year basis.

The Board further ordered the Employer to pay unremitted union dues plus interest, applying the remedy typical for contracting-out violations.

Finally, regarding pension losses, the Board held that the employee is responsible for her share of missed contributions, but the Employer must pay its share plus any interest penalties assessed by the pension trust.

The union filed a grievance in 2010 alleging the employer failed to report the grievor's 1991 surgery and lost time to the WSIB.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the grievance as untimely.

The Grievance Settlement Board found the grievor knew or ought to have known of the failure to report by 1994, making the grievance 16 years late.

The Board declined to extend the time limits under section 48(16) of the Labour Relations Act, finding no reasonable grounds for the delay and substantial prejudice to the employer due to faded memories and missing documentation.

The grievance was dismissed.

The grievor alleged discrimination by the employer.

To facilitate the adjudication of the grievance, the Grievance Settlement Board directed the parties to exchange medical documentation pertaining to the grievor's Workplace Safety and Insurance Board files.

The Board also directed three doctors to provide their complete medical records relating to the grievor to union counsel, who would then provide appropriate copies to employer counsel.

The disclosure was made subject to strict confidentiality conditions, limiting use solely to the arbitration proceedings.

The union requested permission for the grievor to record the arbitration proceedings as a medical accommodation for depression, which allegedly caused issues with concentration and focus.

The employer objected.

The Grievance Settlement Board denied the request, finding that the medical note did not establish that the grievor was unable to participate in the hearing or that recording was the appropriate accommodation, noting that other measures such as additional breaks or note-taking could address the concentration issues without raising the concerns associated with recording proceedings.

The union grieved the employer's failure to distribute overtime equally among Electronic Supervision Resource Officers (ESROs) and Monitoring Centre Officers (MCOs), alleging a breach of the collective agreement.

The employer had centralized shift work and overtime at a new monitoring centre in Mississauga, while ESROs continued to work day shifts at various local probation offices.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that the collective agreement only required fair distribution of overtime within a 'local workplace.' Because the ESROs and MCOs worked in different physical locations, they did not constitute a single local workplace, and the employer's reorganization of work was a valid exercise of management rights.

The grievor, a receptionist at a detention centre, filed a grievance alleging that her manager yelled at her in front of staff and the public, constituting harassment and violating the Collective Agreement.

The matter proceeded through an Expedited Mediation-Arbitration process.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that while the supervisor exercised very poor managerial skills, the conduct did not amount to harassment.

The grievance was denied.

The grievor alleged a loss of hours following a voluntary transfer due to health and safety concerns, claiming it constituted a reprisal under the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The employer maintained that the grievor's previously scheduled hours were honoured and that he actually worked more hours than he would have at his regular store.

The arbitrator found no violation of the Collective Agreement or governing legislation and dismissed the grievance.

The employer brought a motion to consolidate the discharge grievance of one employee with the grievance of another employee who alleged the employer failed to provide a safe workplace.

Both grievances arose from the same incident where the discharged employee allegedly assaulted the other employee.

The union opposed consolidation on behalf of the assaulted employee, arguing it would cause delay and stress.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the matters shared common questions of fact and arose from the same occurrence.

To avoid inconsistent findings of fact, the Board ordered that the matters be heard together, though they would retain their individual identities rather than being strictly consolidated.

The grievor, a Correctional Officer, grieved the termination of his employment.

The Employer terminated him for allegedly orchestrating an assault by one inmate on another and for withholding information during the subsequent investigation.

The arbitrator found the testimony of the Employer's witnesses credible and concluded that the grievor had participated in a scheme to induce an inmate to assault another inmate who had been charged with sexually assaulting a colleague's step-daughter.

Given the serious breach of trust, the physical assault on an inmate, and the grievor's failure to disclose information, the arbitrator held that the employment relationship was irreparably broken.

The grievance was dismissed.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of a Health and Safety Inspector who was denied overtime pay for two days during a training week.

The grievor had been authorized to work one hour of overtime each day to accommodate travel time to the training location.

On the final two days, the formal training ended early, and the trainers instructed the attendees to spend the rest of the day reviewing materials and practicing on the new computer system.

The employer paid the grievor his regular wages for the full days but denied the one hour of overtime, arguing the afternoon activities were not authorized work.

The arbitrator found that because the employer paid regular wages for the full day without instructing employees that the afternoon was not work time, the time was authorized work.

The grievance was allowed, and the employer was ordered to pay the grievor for two hours at overtime rates.

Three correctional officers grieved their discharges.

One officer was discharged for slapping an inmate during a strip search and covering it up, while the other two were discharged for witnessing the slap and covering it up.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the slap did occur, relying on the testimony of another officer who came forward despite the 'code of silence'.

The Board upheld the discharge of the officer who slapped the inmate due to the serious nature of excessive force and his continued denial.

However, the Board mitigated the discharges of the other two officers to reinstatement without compensation, benefits, or accumulation of seniority, given their long and unblemished service records.

The union filed a grievance alleging that the employer bypassed the grievor and assigned an overtime opportunity to an employee with less seniority.

The parties requested the Board to initially determine whether overtime was actually performed on the day in question.

The assigned employee testified that he completed the work within his regular 8-hour shift by taking the ministry truck home the night before and driving directly to the destination, exceeding the speed limit.

The Board accepted the employee's uncontradicted testimony and concluded that no overtime was worked.

The grievance was dismissed.

The Union filed a grievance alleging that the Employer breached a Memorandum of Settlement when an unauthorized individual from the Provincial Government called the Grievor's doctor to inquire about his appointments.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the call was made by someone in the Provincial Government, likely the Ministry of Labour, without the Grievor's consent.

This breach of privacy caused the Grievor's doctor to delay issuing a return-to-work certificate, resulting in one week of lost wages.

The Board held that the Employer breached its duty to carry out the settlement in good faith and awarded the Grievor compensation for the lost wages plus $2,500 in damages for mental distress.

Three Conservation Officers who are canine handlers filed grievances alleging the Employer failed to properly exercise its discretion when denying certain meal allowance claims.

The parties engaged in a med/arb process.

The Vice-Chair resolved the grievances by issuing a declaration that the Employer will reasonably apply the travel directive in the spirit as intended.

The union filed a grievance alleging that the employer violated the collective agreement by allowing certain employees to work fewer hours than scheduled under their compressed work week agreements, while requiring the grievor to work his full hours.

The employer brought a motion to summarily dismiss the grievance for failing to establish a prima facie case.

The Grievance Settlement Board granted the motion, finding that the grievor could not grieve a violation of management rights without establishing that his own rights under the collective agreement were interfered with.

As the grievor only alleged that other employees received benefits beyond their entitlement, the grievance was inarbitrable.

The union filed a grievance alleging the employer failed to roll the grievor into classified status.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the grievance was referred to the Board outside the mandated time limits.

The union argued the employer waived this right by taking 'fresh steps' after initially noting its objection, specifically by investigating the grievor's hours and engaging in discussions on the merits.

The arbitrator agreed with the union, finding the employer took fresh steps and waived its right to rely on the timeliness objection.

As the parties agreed the grievance would be upheld if the objection failed, the grievance was allowed.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the grievance had been settled during mediation.

The union had offered to settle the grievance in exchange for a 10-month fixed-term contract, which the employer accepted.

However, the grievor subsequently learned his current employer would not grant him a leave of absence to accept the contract, and the union refused to sign the minutes of settlement.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that a binding settlement was reached at the moment the employer accepted the union's offer, as there were no substantive issues left to negotiate.

The grievance was declared no longer arbitrable and dismissed.

The grievor, a part-time Child and Youth Counselor, suffered an off-duty ankle injury and returned to work on modified duties.

A dispute arose regarding his medical restrictions, specifically his physician's assertions that he could not work weekends or more than two consecutive shifts.

The employer relied on a Functional Abilities Evaluation that found no such restrictions and scheduled the grievor accordingly.

The grievor repeatedly refused to work his scheduled shifts, claiming they violated his doctor's orders.

The employer applied progressive discipline, culminating in the grievor's termination for insubordination.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievances, finding the employer reasonably relied on the FAE, the grievor failed to cooperate in the accommodation process, and his repeated refusal to work scheduled shifts constituted culpable insubordination justifying discharge.