OGSB 2014

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

During a power outage, the grievor was advised to standby for relocation to an alternate office but went home citing health and safety fears.

The employer maintained it carefully assessed the request and denied it pursuant to management rights.

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

The grievance was denied.

The union filed grievances regarding a change to the employer's policy on the use of ministry vehicles, which required inspectors to keep vehicles at their headquarters rather than at home.

Prior to the hearing on the merits, the employer indicated it would argue the union had not made out a prima facie case and requested further particulars.

The union requested disclosure from the employer.

The Grievance Settlement Board directed the union to provide adequate particulars, finding some alleged facts were not sufficiently particularized.

The Board declined to order the employer to comply with the disclosure request at this stage, as the employer's impending motion could dispose of the matter without a hearing on the merits.

The grievor filed a grievance alleging the employer breached the collective agreement by denying his request for special and compassionate leave when he was unable to get to work because of an ice storm.

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

The arbitrator denied the grievance.

The grievor, a regular full-time employee at a Tim Hortons operated by the Niagara Parks Commission, had her position declared surplus due to an economic downturn.

She exercised her bumping rights to take a seasonal position.

The Union grieved, arguing it was unjust to replace a full-time position with seasonal hours while the operation remained open year-round.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding the Employer acted in good faith for sound business reasons and complied with the specific layoff and bumping provisions of the collective agreement.

The grievor, a Youth Services Officer, was assaulted by a young person in the course of her duties and received benefits under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act.

The union filed a grievance alleging that the employer's failure to provide the grievor with certain information about the young person resulted in the assault, and sought damages.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that any failure to provide information was not the proximate cause of the assault or injuries.

The Board further noted that it lacked the authority to award the damages sought.

The parties agreed that the issues in this grievance were substantially similar to those in another matter before Vice Chair Herlich.

The Grievance Settlement Board directed that the matter be consolidated with the other matter, with the understanding that it would be given hearing and mediation priority.

The Association filed a grievance alleging the Employer violated the Collective Agreement by failing to convert the grievor's temporary assignment to a permanent position.

The grievor had been in a temporary assignment for 34 months.

The central issue was whether there was a continuing need for the work of the temporary position to be performed on a full-time basis for greater than an additional 12 months beyond the initial 24 months.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that due to organizational restructuring, the special project work of the grievor's temporary position no longer existed.

The grievance was dismissed as the conditions for conversion were not met.

The union filed a grievance regarding a wage deduction of $23,863.02 for an alleged overpayment.

In a preliminary motion, the union sought production of a July 2011 letter written to the grievor by her former manager.

The employer objected to its production.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the employer to produce the letter, finding it arguably relevant to the issues and subject to production even if it had been removed from the grievor's personnel file pursuant to a previous settlement.

The Association filed a grievance alleging the employer failed to directly assign or provide bumping opportunities to a surplussed employee.

The employer raised a preliminary objection, arguing the employee waived all such rights when he elected the pension bridging option to retire under Surplus Factor 80.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that the collective agreement provisions for Surplus Factor 80 and pension bridging were independent.

The employee had no rights to direct assignment or bumping during the notice period because he utilized pension bridging.

However, based on the specific communications and the employer's failure to confirm pension eligibility as required, the employee did not knowingly waive his rights to direct assignment and bumping during the pre-notice period.

The preliminary objection was upheld in part.

The Ministry of Transportation raised a preliminary objection to the Union's attempt to introduce evidence regarding purported job re-assignment commitments made to the grievor in 2010 and 2011.

The grievances, filed in September 2012, alleged that the Employer failed to properly redeploy or accommodate the grievor following a surplus notice in April 2012.

The Grievance Settlement Board upheld the Ministry's objection, finding that the new claim was fundamentally different from the original grievances and could not be reasonably construed as an inherent part of them, even when reading the grievance language broadly.

The Union was directed that it could not litigate the issue of the 2010 and 2011 commitments as part of the present grievances.

The grievor failed to attend the scheduled arbitration hearing.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered that the Union must advise within three weeks if it intends to proceed with the next scheduled hearing date and provide reasons for the grievor's non-attendance.

If the Union fails to do so, the grievance will be deemed dismissed.

The parties entered into a Memorandum of Settlement (MOS) to resolve several disputes, which included a provision for the employer to reimburse the complainant up to $5,000 for mutually agreed-upon educational courses relevant to her current or future roles.

The complainant sought approval for a master's certificate in Public Sector Management, which the employer denied on the basis that it was intended for current managers and executives.

The arbitrator, remaining seized of the MOS, found that the proposed course was a reasonable fit within the contemplation of the MOS given the complainant's goal of advancing to management.

The employer was directed to approve the course.

The union filed grievances alleging that Court Reporters assigned to Small Claims Court perform the duties of a higher-rated Registrar classification and should be remunerated accordingly.

The employer argued the matter was a classification grievance outside the Board's jurisdiction.

The Vice-Chair agreed, finding the grievors were essentially challenging the classification of their duties, over which the Board has no jurisdiction.

The grievances were dismissed.

The union grieved the employer's decision to award a Graphic Design and Print Operator position to the incumbent rather than the grievor following a rerun of the job competition.

The grievor alleged that the employer failed to consider his 'thank you binder' and improperly mentioned his prior grievance to a referee.

The arbitrator found that the employer's assessment, which scored the incumbent significantly higher than the grievor, was proper.

The arbitrator concluded that the binder was considered and would not have altered the outcome, and that the conversation with the referee had no negative impact on the selection process.

The grievance was dismissed.

The union filed a grievance alleging the employer violated the collective agreement by asserting that Schedule D of Appendix 18 applied to its Request for Proposal (RFP) for desktop and field services.

The employer intended to issue an RFP to external service providers for functions currently performed by bargaining unit employees.

The employer placed the transfer under Schedule D, arguing that less than eleven full-time bargaining unit related jobs would be created in any one municipality by the receiving organization.

The union argued that the total number of jobs across all municipalities or including support staff would exceed the threshold.

The Grievance Settlement Board accepted the employer's analysis that at most ten positions would be created in Toronto, and dismissed the grievance, finding the placement on Schedule D was appropriate.

The Union brought a motion to consolidate two grievances filed on behalf of the grievor.

The first grievance challenged a 20-day disciplinary suspension for allegedly throwing a wet floor sign at an inmate, while the second alleged a privacy breach after the employer publicized the discipline on a shared computer drive.

The Union argued both actions were motivated by anti-union animus.

The Grievance Settlement Board granted the motion to consolidate, finding that the grievances shared common questions of law and fact, arose out of the same occurrence, and that hearing them together would be a more efficient use of resources without causing prejudice to the employer.

The Union sought an interim remedy to allow the Grievor to work from the Greater Ottawa Area instead of Peterborough until the final disposition of his grievance alleging discrimination based on religion and family status.

The Grievor claimed his religious beliefs required him to pray with his wife twice daily and that he provided daily care to his elderly parents.

The Grievance Settlement Board denied the application, finding the Union failed to establish an arguable case or that the balance of harm favoured the Grievor, noting he had commuted from Ottawa to Peterborough for years without irreparable harm.

The parties appeared before the Grievance Settlement Board regarding two individual grievances.

During the hearing, the parties dealt with preliminary and procedural issues, including timelines for production and particulars.

The parties agreed to a consent order regarding the disclosure of the grievor's medical information, subject to conditions ensuring confidentiality, limited access, and secure destruction of the documents at the close of the proceeding.

The Board issued the consent order as agreed.

The Association grieved the employer's failure to provide insurance coverage for dental implants, arguing that implants fall under the category of 'major restorative services' in Article 35 of the collective agreement.

The employer maintained that the incorporated insurance policy did not cover implants and that Article 35 merely established premium payment and reimbursement levels, rather than expanding coverage.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that while dental implants could be considered a major restorative service, the collective agreement's general reference to such services did not explicitly expand the specific coverage provided in the underlying insurance policy.

The union grieved the employer's decision to post a fixed-term Ambulance Communications Officer position with a mandatory requirement for advanced level oral French, while not requiring applicants to have already completed Entry to Practice training.

The grievors did not possess the required French language skills.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievances, finding that the employer's designation of the position as bilingual was a reasonable exercise of management rights for a legitimate business purpose in a designated French-speaking area.

Because the grievors lacked the mandatory language qualification, the employer's decision regarding the training requirement was immaterial to their lack of success in the competition.