OGSB 2014

The grievor filed four grievances alleging various breaches of the collective agreement, the Occupational Health & Safety Act, and the Workplace Harassment and Discrimination Policy, including allegations of religious discrimination and constructive dismissal.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the grievances on the basis that the particulars provided did not disclose a prima facie case.

The Grievance Settlement Board upheld the employer's motion, finding that even if the facts asserted were accepted as true and provable, they were not capable of establishing the elements to substantiate the alleged violations.

The grievances were dismissed.

In a grievance arbitration alleging unjust treatment, harassment, and discrimination, the union claimed the grievor suffered emotional and mental injury.

The employer sought a production order for the grievor's medical records relating to her mental health, arguing that her mental state had been put directly in issue.

The Vice-Chair granted the production order, directing the grievor to consent to the release of clinical notes and records from January 2004 to the present.

The arbitrator was seized with three grievances pursuant to the Mediation/Arbitration Procedure in the Collective Agreement.

Upon consideration, the arbitrator granted the grievances and remained seized of any implementation issues.

In a grievance arbitration, the Employer requested further particulars from the Union.

After hearing submissions, the Grievance Settlement Board ordered the Union to provide the further particulars requested by the Employer.

The Union brought a preliminary motion requesting that a group grievance and a separate Union grievance be consolidated with two other grievances scheduled to be heard by the same Vice-Chair at a later date.

The grievances generally related to alleged breaches of confidentiality regarding medical information and WSIB claims posted on a shared computer drive.

The Employer opposed the consolidation, arguing the facts and law were dissimilar and that the request should be made to the Board seated for the future hearing.

The Vice-Chair declined to grant the consolidation order at this time, noting that the formal hearing for the other matters had not yet commenced and the specific questions to be posed were not yet agreed upon.

The dismissal was without prejudice to the Union raising the request before the Board seated to hear the other matters.

The Grievance Settlement Board heard two procedural issues regarding the termination of five employees at the Elgin Middlesex Detention Centre.

The Vice-Chair confirmed oral rulings consolidating two related grievances involving lesser discipline with the termination grievances.

The Vice-Chair also ordered that document disclosure be subject to strict confidentiality conditions, limiting use to the litigation and requiring the return of documents at the conclusion of the proceedings.

The grievor filed eight grievances in 2013 relating to a workplace injury sustained in 2006 and the employer's subsequent conduct, including an alleged failure to investigate her complaints and properly maintain vehicles.

The employer raised preliminary objections, arguing the grievances were untimely and barred by issue estoppel, as a previous grievance regarding the 2006 incident was dismissed in 2011.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that the grievances were not continuing in nature and were filed several years beyond the collective agreement's time limits.

The Board declined to extend the time limits under section 48(16) of the Labour Relations Act due to the extreme delay.

The Board also found that the health and safety allegations were barred by issue estoppel, and that the employer's participation in WSIB proceedings was protected by absolute privilege.

All grievances were dismissed.

The grievor, a Correctional Officer 2 (CO2) with thirty years of service, filed a grievance alleging the employer violated the collective agreement by failing to progress him to the CO3 wage grid.

The matter proceeded through an expedited mediation-arbitration process.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that the Grievance Settlement Board lacks jurisdiction to entertain classification grievances.

The Union filed a group grievance alleging the Employer breached the collective agreement by failing to adequately train staff on a new Attendance Support and Management Program.

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

The arbitrator found no breach of the collective agreement and denied the grievance.

The union filed a grievance alleging that the employer violated the management rights and employment stability clauses of the collective agreement by improperly surplusing the grievor.

The parties agreed to a bottom-line decision without reasons.

The arbitrator found that the grievor was properly surplused and dismissed the grievance.

The union filed a policy grievance alleging the employer contravened salary note G29 by denying wage increases to nine employees who performed work for the Aviation and Forest Fire Management Branch during the 2011 fire season.

The employees held home positions outside the Fire Branch.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that the clear language of the salary note attached the wage increases to positions 'in the Aviation and Forest Fire Management Branch', and therefore did not apply to employees whose home positions were elsewhere in the Ministry.

The grievor, a correctional officer with dyslexia, filed a grievance alleging discrimination, harassment, and a poisoned work environment after a co-worker called him a 'retard' and an 'idiot' and allegedly made a threatening gun gesture.

The grievor claimed the harassment continued and the Employer failed to adequately investigate or address his complaints under the Workplace Discrimination and Harassment Policy.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the Employer failed to ensure a workplace free from discrimination and harassment, as its investigation was too narrow and ignored the ongoing nature of the complaints.

The Board awarded the grievor $1,500 in damages for loss of dignity and mental distress.

The union filed grievances on behalf of over one hundred grievors alleging improper balancing of hours, including alleged violations of Appendix COR1 Schedule A. The employer raised a preliminary objection that the Schedule A issues should be dismissed because none of the grievors worked in a designated Schedule A position.

The Vice-Chair upheld the preliminary objection and dismissed those specific allegations.

The grievor, a correctional officer, filed grievances alleging her health and safety was put at risk by having to work with an accommodated coworker.

She sought various remedies including $500,000 for pain and suffering and full health benefits for life.

The Grievance Settlement Board, issuing a decision without reasons pursuant to an expedited mediation-arbitration protocol, found no violation of the collective agreement's health and safety provisions.

The Board concluded there was no evidence of any risk to the grievor or inmates resulting from the accommodated coworker's presence, and dismissed the grievances.

The employer brought a motion to strike additional particulars filed by the union regarding a grievance alleging failure to accommodate religious observance and family status.

The employer argued the additional particulars contravened a prior case management direction and were filed late.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the motion, finding that the prior direction did not mandate a binding exchange of full particulars, but rather required the union to identify all grounds of the Human Rights Code it was relying upon.

As the employer was already aware of most of the facts and had ample notice, the union was not precluded from relying on them.

The grievor, a Customer Service Representative, filed a grievance alleging the employer breached the collective agreement by denying her request for special and compassionate leave for December 23 and 24, 2013.

The grievor had attended work during a power outage but went home instead of waiting for reassignment or checking the emergency hotline.

The employer argued it properly assessed the leave request and exercised its management rights in denying it.

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

The Vice-Chair denied the grievance.

The union filed a grievance alleging the employer breached the collective agreement by denying the grievor's request for special and compassionate leave.

The grievor had attended work but the building was closed due to a power outage, and he was unaware of the emergency hotline or alternative work assignment.

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 and ordered the employer to reimburse the grievor for his loss of pay or benefits.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the union's harassment and discrimination grievances on the basis that there was no prima facie case.

The employer argued the grievances related to letters written to the grievors about conforming with an order, while the union alleged the letters were part of an overall series of events that must be viewed in context.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the employer's preliminary motion, allowing the grievances to proceed.

The union filed grievances on behalf of upwards of one hundred grievors alleging improper balancing of hours.

To streamline the process, the Vice-Chair issued an interim procedural order requiring the union to obtain full particulars from each grievor by a specified deadline, failing which the grievance would be deemed withdrawn.

The order also set deadlines for providing the particulars to the employer and scheduled further hearings to address specific issues.

Three grievances were filed alleging a poisoned work environment and violations of the WDHP policy following an incident at a correctional facility.

The parties participated in an expedited mediation-arbitration process.

The arbitrator found that the only resolution that would truly benefit the grievors on an ongoing basis was workplace mediation.

The employer was ordered to retain the services of an external mediator to facilitate mandatory mediation between the grievors.