OGSB 2013

The union filed grievances on behalf of two correctional officers alleging unjust discipline and a poisoned work environment following suspensions for an alleged excessive use of force incident.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the employer to provide appropriate disclosure to the union and directed that a teleconference be scheduled to discuss the hearing process once disclosure was complete.

The union filed a grievance alleging that the employer violated the collective agreement by temporarily assigning less senior employees to a vacant Senior Operations Technician position instead of the grievor.

The parties agreed to a true mediation-arbitration process and requested a bottom-line decision without reasons.

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

The Employer sought to introduce written and verbal statements from inmates regarding an alleged assault by a correctional officer, which led to the discharge of three officers.

The Union opposed the admission of these hearsay statements.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that the statements did not meet the tests of necessity and reliability under the principled approach to hearsay, as the Employer failed to show efforts to obtain testimony through alternative means for deported witnesses, and the statements lacked sufficient guarantees of trustworthiness.

However, the Board admitted the statements into the record under section 48(12)(f) of the Labour Relations Act, leaving the determination of their weight to the conclusion of the hearing.

The grievors filed multiple grievances alleging denial of sick leave, harassment, and discriminatory treatment.

They also filed complaints with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.

Following unsuccessful mediation, the parties agreed to have the Grievance Settlement Board determine the outstanding human rights issues.

The Board issued this decision to formalize the agreement, directed the union to provide full particulars of the human rights issues, and noted that the Human Rights Tribunal had deferred its proceedings.

The grievor failed to attend a scheduled arbitration hearing, having previously failed to attend a mediation session.

The Union requested an adjournment, while the Employer sought dismissal of the grievance due to prejudice from delay.

The Vice-Chair held that the grievor had an onus to be attentive to the scheduling of his grievance.

The grievance was ordered to be administratively dismissed unless the Union could provide a good reason for the grievor's failure to attend by a specified date.

The employer alleged that the Association failed to provide a succinct written summary regarding the complainant's eligibility for identified positions, as agreed upon in a disclosure protocol.

The employer sought an order compelling the Association to provide the information by a specific date.

The Association opposed the order, asserting it was making best efforts.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the Association to provide the information by June 14, 2013, noting the importance of timely disclosure for effective mediation.

The union brought grievances on behalf of an employee who was suspended with pay for five months and then given a disciplinary suspension without pay.

The parties participated in an expedited mediation-arbitration process.

The arbitrator was persuaded by the union's submissions and ordered that the grievor be made whole in terms of compensation and credited with all hours lost due to sick leave for the period at issue.

The union grieved the employer's decision not to renew the grievor's fixed term contract as a nurse.

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

The arbitrator granted the grievance in part, ordering the employer to reinstate the grievor to a fixed term contract with her original start date, but declined to award financial compensation.

The union filed a grievance alleging the employer violated the collective agreement and an overtime protocol by failing to offer a recreation officer four hours of overtime when a 12-hour shift became available due to an unplanned absence.

The grievor was already scheduled for an 8-hour shift on the days in question.

The arbitrator found that the union failed to meet its onus to establish a breach, as the protocol's reference to 'off duty' officers was unclear and the evidence of past practice was inconsistent.

The grievance was denied.

The grievor, a correctional officer, was relocated following the closure of the Owen Sound Jail.

He grieved that the employer violated the collective agreement by failing to provide him with three days off with pay to find new accommodation in the area of his future assignment.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding no such entitlement under the collective agreement or any other agreement.

The grievor, a Data Processing Technician, was laid off after his position was relocated and he declined to move.

He filed two grievances alleging the Employer breached the collective agreement by failing to redeploy him to a Payment Processing position or allow him to displace a junior employee, and by failing to provide him with a temporary assignment during his surplus notice period.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed both grievances, finding that the grievor lacked the requisite financial qualifications to perform the core duties of the Payment Processing position without a training period, and that the union failed to prove that any temporary vacancies existed for which the grievor was qualified.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of a grounds maintenance worker, alleging that the employer violated the collective agreement by running an unfair and flawed job competition.

The competition was for a position limited to job-threatened employees, and the grievor was not the successful candidate.

The Grievance Settlement Board denied the grievance, finding no evidence of a flawed process or any violation of the collective agreement.

The Board also noted that the successful incumbent had greater seniority than the grievor.

A group of Correctional Officers filed grievances alleging the Employer violated the Collective Agreement by failing to convert them from fixed-term to regular status.

The Employer argued that a prior Memorandum of Agreement, which provided for a specific number of conversions, explicitly barred the advancement of further conversion grievances during the term of the Collective Agreement.

The Grievance Settlement Board agreed with the Employer, finding that the prior agreement precluded the grievances, and dismissed them for lack of jurisdiction.

The union filed three grievances alleging that the employer filled temporary assignments without posting them, in breach of the collective agreement.

During mediation, the employer disclosed that the assignments were for less than six months, which under the collective agreement did not require posting.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievances, noting that earlier disclosure during the grievance procedure might have resolved the matter without a hearing.

The employer brought a motion to dismiss numerous grievances alleging a breach of displacement rights under the collective agreement, arguing they were referred to arbitration outside the mandatory time limits.

The union conceded the grievances were referred late due to an administrative error but argued it was inequitable to deny the grievors access to arbitration.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that it lacked jurisdiction under the collective agreement and section 48(16) of the Labour Relations Act to extend the time limits for referral to arbitration.

The grievances were dismissed.

The Employer requested an adjournment of a scheduled hearing date because its counsel had to travel to the United States to attend to a serious family medical emergency.

The Union opposed the request, citing previous delays and the grievor's interest in concluding the matter.

The Grievance Settlement Board granted the adjournment, finding that the unexpected family emergency warranted the delay and that it would be unreasonable to require the Employer to assign new counsel on short notice.

The union filed a grievance after the employer directed an occupational health and safety inspector, under threat of discipline, to attend and testify at an examination for discovery in a civil action against the Crown.

The union argued that section 63(3) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act makes inspectors non-compellable witnesses.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that while the inspector was being compelled, the privilege against testifying does not reside with the inspector personally.

Reading the Act as a whole, the Board concluded that the employer (the Crown) has the discretion to waive the privilege and direct the inspector to testify in order to defend the integrity of the inspection process.

The Union sought the production of health care documents from SARJ and EMDC related to a use of force incident involving an inmate on August 31, 2011.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the Employer to produce the requested documents, subject to the conditions set out in an earlier order.

In a grievance arbitration concerning a layoff, the Union requested the production of a Communications Review report.

The Employer refused.

During a conference call, the Vice-Chair determined that the report was not arguably relevant to the issues in the proceeding, noting the nature of the report, the timing of events, and that the decision-maker was unaware of the report at the relevant time.

The request for production was denied, with leave to revisit the issue if evidence at the hearing demonstrated relevance.

Following a finding that the grievor was terminated without just cause, the parties could not agree on the calculation of damages in lieu of reinstatement.

The grievor argued that damages should be calculated at a full-time rate, as she would have become full-time had she not been terminated, and at a higher wage rate that took effect shortly after her termination.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed both arguments, holding that because the grievor declined reinstatement, she was not entitled to back pay or to be treated as if she had continued working.

Damages in lieu of reinstatement were to be calculated based on her casual rate and the wage rate in effect at the time of her termination.

The Board also found it lacked jurisdiction over Employment Insurance issues.