OGSB 2013

The union requested an order for the appointment of an independent investigator to investigate a racist hate mail campaign at the Toronto Jail, arguing the employer's internal investigation was inadequate.

The Grievance Settlement Board denied the request as premature, finding that the employer had made substantial efforts and that the parties must first address the implementation of recommendations from a previous review of the employer's investigation.

The grievor, a Financial Officer at the Family Responsibility Office, was terminated for cause after an IT forensic investigation revealed he had falsified pay stubs for a manager's mortgage brokerage business, conducted a personal accounting business during work hours using government resources, and disclosed confidential client information to a third party.

The grievor failed to attend the latter part of the arbitration hearings and provided no medical documentation to justify his absence.

The Grievance Settlement Board found the employer's evidence substantiated the misconduct.

The Board also dismissed the grievor's human rights allegations, finding no evidence of discriminatory treatment.

Given the serious nature of the misconduct and the grievor's failure to take ownership of his actions, the Board upheld the termination and dismissed the grievance.

Nine grievors worked in the STEP program at Thistletown Residential Centre.

When the program closed, they were offered alternative work in the TREAD program along with necessary training.

The grievors declined the work because it was unfamiliar and involved a different client group.

They subsequently filed grievances seeking notice payments under the Employment Standards Act.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievances, finding that the employer had work available and offered training, and the grievors could not elect to leave and demand pay in lieu of notice.

The grievors, Tobacco and Fuel Inspectors, initiated a work refusal due to safety concerns during a pilot project inspecting tobacco farms.

They subsequently filed grievances alleging that the Employer harassed them in response to their safety concerns, citing dismissive behavior at meetings, delayed compliance with Ministry of Labour orders, and workplace isolation.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievances, finding that while the Employer's conduct did not promote good labour relations, it fell short of the high threshold required to establish harassment under the collective agreement or the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The grievor, a Correctional Officer, filed a grievance alleging she should have been rolled-over from fixed-term to regular classified employee status pursuant to a Memorandum of Agreement.

The grievor argued she missed the Expression of Interest posting due to a workplace injury.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding it unnecessary to decide the notice issue because the grievor was 112 hours short of the last person on the list to be rolled-over.

The employer brought a motion to dismiss a province-wide union grievance on the basis that it was referred to arbitration approximately one month beyond the time stipulated under the collective agreement.

The union argued that the employer had waived any right to object to the tardy referral, given that seven years had elapsed and significant litigation events had occurred before the employer raised the objection.

The arbitrator agreed with the union, finding that the employer must be taken to have waived any reliance on the time limit.

The employer's objection was dismissed.

The Employer sought an order for the production of the grievor's clinical notes and medical records.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the Union and the grievor to produce the records of specified doctors and other health practitioners, limited to documents arguably relevant to the grievor's accommodation request and the effect of the Employer's actions on his mental health.

The Board also imposed conditions on who could review the documents and restricted their use solely to these proceedings.

The parties made written submissions regarding the appropriate amounts owing to the grievors following an earlier decision.

The Vice-Chair concluded that the Employer's position was more consistent with the law and earlier decisions of the Board, and adopted the Employer's position.

The union grieved the termination of a seasonal warehouse worker.

By consent of the parties, the Grievance Settlement Board ordered the grievor reinstated subject to strict conditions.

The period from termination to reinstatement was deemed a disciplinary suspension without pay.

The reinstatement was subject to a two-year last chance agreement requiring strict adherence to health and safety policies, prohibition of horseplay or harassing conduct, and maintenance of average productivity.

Any breach of these conditions would constitute just cause for termination.

The union filed a grievance claiming that the employer was required to provide 120 hours' notice when asking employees to work at a different office location to cover staff shortages, failing which the first shift must be paid at overtime rates.

The union relied on Article UN5.1 of the collective agreement regarding changes to the posted shift schedule.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that Article UN5.1 refers to hours of work (time) and not the location of work, and therefore has no application to a change of work location.

The grievor, a Correctional Officer, filed a grievance alleging the employer violated the collective agreement and overtime protocol by failing to allow him to work overtime on a specific shift.

The matter proceeded through the Expedited Mediation-Arbitration process.

The Vice-Chair upheld the grievance without reasons, in accordance with the negotiated protocol.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of a correctional officer alleging the employer violated the collective agreement by denying him the opportunity to apply for a Bailiff Backfill position.

The employer had issued an Expression of Interest limited to correctional officers at specific facilities where backfill coverage was required.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that the employer was entitled to determine where the work needed to be done and was not obliged to open the Expression of Interest to every correctional officer in the province.

The grievor, a Correctional Officer, filed a grievance alleging the Employer denied him the opportunity to work as a Provincial Bailiff Backfill in violation of the collective agreement and policy.

The Employer had posted an expression of interest for the role, for which the grievor applied a day late.

The grievance was heard through an Expedited Mediation-Arbitration process.

The arbitrator found no violation of the collective agreement or any ancillary document and dismissed the grievance.

Four grievors were surplussed and elected to take a severance package.

The Union grieved the Employer's calculation of severance pay, arguing that under section 65 of the Employment Standards Act, severance should be based on years since the date of hire rather than the 'continuous service date' defined in the collective agreement.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievances, finding that the collective agreement provided a greater overall benefit to the bargaining unit than the ESA, as it included both standard severance and enhanced severance with no maximum amount.

Therefore, the ESA did not apply and the Employer's calculations were correct.

The grievor, a Recreational Officer, filed a grievance alleging the Employer violated the Collective Agreement by not allowing him to apply for a Bailiff Backfill position, claiming discrimination based on his classification.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that classification is not a prohibited ground of discrimination under the Collective Agreement or the Human Rights Code.

The Board held that the Employer had the right to determine workforce composition and require Correctional Officers for the position, a qualification the grievor did not meet.

The union filed a grievance alleging that the employer scheduled junior casual employees for hours that the grievor, who was subject to a medical accommodation limiting her to 5-hour shifts, was available to work.

The employer reviewed the schedules and conceded that the grievor lost one hour on a single shift in November 2012, agreeing to pay her for that hour.

The arbitrator found that on all other occasions, the junior employees worked shifts that either overlapped beyond the grievor's start time or ended before her shift commenced.

The grievance was allowed in part for the single hour and otherwise dismissed.

The union filed grievances on behalf of provincial bailiffs alleging that the employer contravened the Ministry's Statement of Ethical Principles by failing to pay them attendance target incentives that were paid to correctional officers and youth workers.

The arbitrator found that the language of the collective agreement regarding absenteeism target incentives clearly and unequivocally applied only to regular correctional officers and regular youth workers, and did not apply to bailiffs.

The grievances were denied.

The union filed a policy grievance alleging the employer violated the collective agreement by failing to apply it to court reporters who prepare and certify transcripts.

The employer conceded that the work was bargaining unit work and that it was in violation of the collective agreement by treating the reporters as independent contractors, but argued the Board lacked jurisdiction to order compliance because it intended to contract out the work.

The Board rejected the employer's arguments based on res judicata and management rights, finding it had the statutory mandate to provide a final and binding settlement to the dispute.

The Board ordered the employer to cease its violation and immediately apply the collective agreement to the court reporters performing the transcript work.

The union filed a grievance regarding the denial of a paid leave of absence for compassionate purposes under the collective agreement.

Days before the arbitration hearing, the union sought to argue that the denial also constituted discrimination on the basis of family status and other prohibited grounds under the Human Rights Code.

The employer objected to this expansion of the grievance.

The Grievance Settlement Board upheld the employer's objection, finding that the human rights allegations were not part of or inherent in the original grievance, and the employer could not have reasonably expected that the grievance included such claims.

The union brought a motion seeking to declare the grievor's discharge void ab initio or to exclude a videotape from evidence, arguing the employer breached the collective agreement by refusing to disclose the videotape at the Stage 3 grievance meeting.

The employer maintained that its obligation to provide 'particulars' only required stating the material facts, not producing evidence.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the motion, finding that the obligation to provide particulars does not extend to the production of evidence, and the employer had fulfilled its obligation by detailing the material facts in the termination letter.