OGSB 2013

The grievor, a former Customer Service Representative, participated in a job competition for a newly created Caseworker position following a modernization project.

She failed to achieve the 65 percent threshold in phase two of the competition, which consisted of an oral interview, a written test, and a role play.

The union grieved the result, arguing that the grievor should have received additional marks on the written test and role play, and that the marking was arbitrary.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding no evidence of bad faith or differential treatment, and concluding that the union failed to establish that the marking process was not fair, reasonable, and consistent.

The union brought a motion claiming the employer fundamentally breached a Memorandum of Settlement by having a representative from the grievor's former workplace contact him directly regarding his benefits claim, which exacerbated his mental stress.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the employer's actions in seeking administrative assistance to fulfill its obligations under the settlement did not constitute a breach of the settlement's confidentiality or assistance provisions.

The motion to set aside the settlement was dismissed.

The union filed grievances on behalf of seasonal employees alleging that the employer improperly reduced the duration of their seasonal contracts and failed to offer pre-season work.

The union argued that the employer's actions were motivated by anti-union animus, involved improper contracting out, and were contrary to the doctrine of promissory estoppel based on alleged promises made to the grievors.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievances, finding no evidence of anti-union animus or improper contracting out.

The Board also rejected the estoppel claims, concluding that there were no clear and unequivocal promises intended to affect legal relations, nor was there detrimental reliance by the grievors.

The Employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the grievance, arguing that the Union failed to raise a prima facie defence to the declaration that the grievor abandoned her position under section 42 of the Public Service of Ontario Act, 2006.

The Employer sought to have the motion decided solely on the Union's statement of particulars without hearing viva voce evidence.

The Vice-Chair denied the motion, finding that the grievance also encompassed complaints of harassment and failure to accommodate, and that evidence was necessary to fairly and properly resolve the intertwined issues.

The grievor, a correctional officer, filed a grievance alleging the employer breached the collective agreement by denying his request to change a leave without pay to a vacation day.

The parties referred the matter 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 grievor received a five-day suspension for insubordination and using profanities toward his manager.

The matter proceeded via expedited arbitration.

The arbitrator found that the grievor did not accept the need to modify his behaviour, denied most of the conduct, and failed to apologize.

As the grievor did not candidly acknowledge the inappropriateness of his conduct, the arbitrator declined to reduce the suspension and dismissed the grievance.

The Union sought production of documents related to a job competition.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the Employer to produce all arguably relevant documents in its possession to Union Counsel no later than thirty days prior to the next hearing date.

The Board also imposed a confidentiality order, directing that the documents be used only for the purposes of the hearing and that the grievor return them to Union Counsel upon conclusion of the proceedings.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued a procedural order regarding 11 grievances filed by the same grievor concerning workplace accommodation.

With the consent of the parties, the Vice-Chair ordered that the hearing be divided into three distinct parts: first, determining what accommodation is required for the future; second, determining liability for past events; and third, determining remedy if necessary.

The Board also issued production orders requiring the union to provide medical reports and particulars of the requested future accommodation, and the employer to advise if it intends to request an independent medical examination.

Eight correctional officers and members of the ICIT team grieved that the employer breached the collective agreement by not activating the team for service on April 7 and 8 at the Toronto Jail.

The parties referred the grievances 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 denied the grievances.

The employer brought a motion to dismiss a union grievance alleging that the employer violated the collective agreement by refusing to allow an elected union representative to attend joint committee meetings in person due to alleged safety concerns.

The employer insisted the representative participate by teleconference.

The employer argued the facts alleged did not establish a prima facie violation of the collective agreement.

The arbitrator dismissed the employer's motion, finding that the facts as alleged were capable of establishing a violation of the collective agreement, and directed that the grievance proceed to a hearing on the merits.

The union filed a grievance alleging the employer unreasonably exercised its management rights by unilaterally adjusting the official range of rates for the Adjustment Advisory position, effectively downgrading the employees to a lower-paying classification.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the grievance for lack of jurisdiction.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that the true nature of the grievance was a classification dispute.

Under sections 51 and 52 of the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act, the Board is expressly deprived of jurisdiction to require a change in an employee's classification.

Accordingly, the employer's motion was granted and the grievance was dismissed.

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 denied the grievance.

The grievors, group sales representatives for Ontario Place Corporation, received surplus notices and filed grievances alleging bad faith and discrimination.

The employer brought a preliminary motion arguing that the grievances disclosed no prima facie case.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the employer's motion, finding that the facts asserted, if true, were capable of establishing the alleged violations, and directed that the hearing continue on the merits.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of the grievor challenging the termination of her employment.

Following a hearing on the merits, the Grievance Settlement Board directed the employer to reinstate the grievor to her employment effective May 9, 2013, and remained seized of the grievance to address any outstanding issues.

The grievor, a fixed-term Correctional Officer, was terminated for allegedly smuggling alcohol and cigarettes to an inmate and lying to the investigator.

The employer relied on testimony from an inmate and the discovery of an empty vodka bottle in the grievor's locker.

The grievor denied the smuggling allegations and claimed the bottle had been in his locker for over a year and a half.

The arbitrator found that the grievor's timeline regarding the bottle was impossible based on its manufacturing date, concluding that the grievor lied on a highly material fact during the investigation and at arbitration.

The grievance was dismissed, as the dishonesty alone justified termination.

The grievor alleged that the Employer exercised its management rights in an arbitrary and bad faith manner when it decided to surplus his Communications Advisor/Planner position.

The Employer maintained the decision was based on budget reductions and a focus on core business functions.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the Employer acted in good faith with a genuine intention to carry out a legitimate government objective, and that the decision was reasonable.

The grievance was dismissed.

The grievor, a Youth Services Officer at a secure custody facility, was discharged for misusing Ministry IT resources by accessing and printing inappropriate sexual images and providing them to young persons in custody, and for allowing young persons to view pornographic videos on a Ministry computer.

The union grieved the discharge, arguing the penalty was excessive compared to other officers who received lesser discipline for similar conduct.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding the grievor's misconduct was more severe and compounded by his lack of candour and failure to take responsibility during the investigation.

The Employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss a grievance regarding the grievor's removal from a Painter 2 position, arguing it was filed outside the collective agreement's time limits.

The Union conceded the grievance was untimely but argued the Employer was estopped from relying on the time limits due to past practice, or alternatively, that the arbitrator should exercise discretion under s. 48(16) of the Labour Relations Act to extend the time.

The arbitrator found no clear representation by the Employer to support estoppel.

Applying the factors for extending time limits, the arbitrator concluded the delay was excessive, the Employer was not forewarned, and the Union failed to provide a justifiable explanation.

The preliminary motion was upheld and the grievance dismissed.

The union sought production of documents related to organizational and technological changes noticed in 2012.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the employer to produce all relevant documents received or created by its Executive Committee or Board of Directors regarding the planning or implementation of those changes.

The union filed a grievance alleging that the employer's human resources software (WIN) discriminated against a transgender employee by lacking gender-neutral prefixes and pronouns.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the grievance, arguing that its addition of the category 'unknown' to the system fully satisfied its duty to accommodate under the Human Rights Code.

The arbitrator dismissed the motion as premature, holding that evidence was required to assess whether the accommodation adequately addressed the specific nature of the alleged discrimination regarding gender identity and expression.