OGSB 2014

The union brought an application to consolidate two grievances filed on behalf of the grievor.

The first grievance related to a 20-month suspension with pay pending an investigation into a 'water club' run by the grievor, which allegedly caused severe mental and physical health issues.

The second grievance related to the employer's refusal to honor the grievor's surplus election form, which was submitted two weeks late, allegedly due to the health effects of the suspension.

The employer resisted consolidation, citing a lack of particulars.

The Vice-Chair granted the application to consolidate, finding sufficient commonality in the facts and legal questions, particularly regarding the medical evidence, to avoid inconsistent findings and provide procedural efficiencies.

The union filed a job posting grievance alleging the employer violated the 'relative equality' clause in Article 6.3 of the collective agreement when it awarded a Senior Field Auditor position to a candidate with greater seniority instead of the grievor.

The grievor, classified as a TA5, argued he had more experience with complex audits than the successful candidate, who was classified as a TA4.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the successful candidate had been performing TA5-level work and had more relevant experience in the specific area of Electricity Act audits.

The Board concluded the candidates were relatively equal, making seniority the deciding factor, and dismissed the grievance.

The union filed a policy grievance alleging the employer failed to recognize certain positions as falling within the bargaining unit.

The parties asked the Board to interpret the recognition clause.

The Board held that the recognition clause did not create an 'all employee' bargaining unit, but was limited to the classifications specified in the schedules or developed under article 9.

However, the Board found that the general exclusion of 'office and technical staff' was inserted by mistake during drafting and did not reflect the parties' agreement.

The Board applied the doctrine of rectification to remove the general exclusion of office and technical staff from the collective agreement.

The union requested an order directing the employer to fully implement the terms of a Memorandum of Settlement that resolved a 2012 grievance.

Following a conference call, the Grievance Settlement Board ordered the employer to fully implement the settlement terms within 30 days, including correcting the grievor's vacation and STSP credits in the WIN system.

The union filed a grievance alleging the employer discriminated against the grievor on the basis of age, race, and place of origin when he was denied an interview for an engineering position.

The employer raised a preliminary objection to the Board's jurisdiction because the position sought was in a different bargaining unit represented by PEGO, not OPSEU.

The Board upheld the preliminary objection, finding that while it has jurisdiction to apply the Human Rights Code, that jurisdiction must be anchored to a right or discretion exercised under the OPSEU collective agreement.

Because the grievance challenged a selection process governed entirely by the PEGO collective agreement, the Board lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter.

The union grieved six disciplinary actions, including a discharge, imposed on a GO Transit bus operator for various customer service incidents and insubordination.

The arbitrator upheld a three-day suspension, a letter of warning, and a five-day suspension for insubordination.

A second five-day suspension was set aside as the employer called no evidence.

A nine-day suspension for asking a passenger to mute a cell phone was reduced to five days.

The discharge, which followed an incident where the grievor made inappropriate comments to a young passenger who could not pay the full fare, was found to be excessive in light of the adjusted disciplinary record and the grievor's post-discharge letter acknowledging his mistakes.

The discharge was substituted with a three-week suspension.

The union filed grievances alleging the employer inappropriately applied the Attendance Support and Management Program Policy (ASMPP) by failing to accommodate the grievor's personal circumstances and by dealing with him in an untimely fashion.

The grievor sought to have his sick time removed from his record, among other remedies.

The arbitrator found that the employer failed to follow its policy timelines, noting a thirteen-month delay in notifying the grievor of his progression through the ASMPP levels.

However, the arbitrator held that the grievor remained responsible for monitoring his own sick leave and that the employer had accommodated him by granting compassionate days.

The arbitrator issued a declaration that the employer did not follow its policy regarding the timing of notice and meetings, but denied the other requested remedies.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to have the discipline grievances of three correctional officers heard together.

The grievances all stemmed from the same alleged use-of-force incident involving an inmate and the ensuing investigation.

The union opposed the motion, arguing that the legal issues were specific to each grievor and that hearing them together would cause delay and prejudice.

The Grievance Settlement Board granted the motion, finding that hearing the matters together would be more efficient given the significant overlap in evidence and would avoid the possibility of conflicting findings of fact.

During an arbitration concerning the termination of a Probation & Parole Officer, the Employer brought a motion to exclude the testimony of a police officer whom the Union intended to call as a witness.

The Employer argued the evidence was not relevant, cogent, or helpful.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the Employer's motion, finding that the anticipated testimony was at least arguably relevant, and allowed the Union to call the witness.

Several employees at the Bluewater Youth Centre filed grievances regarding their redeployment options.

They had made elections based on the Ministry's announcement that the Sarnia Jail would be closing.

When the Ministry later reversed its decision and kept the Sarnia Jail open, the grievors sought to change their elections, alleging they were misled.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievances, finding no bad faith by the Ministry and concluding that allowing new elections due to unforeseen changes in circumstance would cause administrative chaos.

The union filed two grievances on behalf of a laid-off employee who was unsuccessful in a competition for a full-time position after failing a written French language test.

The grievances alleged the position should have been directly assigned to the grievor, or alternatively, that she should have been the successful candidate.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered that the hearing be bifurcated to first address whether the written French language requirement was a legitimate exercise of management rights, and whether the redeployment grievance was timely, as these preliminary issues could be dispositive.

The grievor, a correctional officer, grieved a 10-day suspension and a non-disciplinary transfer imposed after he allegedly showed a naked photograph of a female co-worker to another employee.

The union argued the grievor showed a picture of a different woman and that the co-worker fabricated the story.

The arbitrator resolved the factual dispute in favour of the employer, finding the co-worker's evidence more credible and that the grievor did show the complainant's picture.

The grievance was denied, upholding the suspension and transfer.

In a grievance arbitration regarding the denial of long term disability benefits, the employer sought a blanket exclusion of the complainant's oral evidence, arguing the matter should be determined solely on the documentary record reviewed by the Joint Benefits Committee.

The Vice-Chair rejected the employer's argument for a blanket prohibition, noting the broad discretion to adopt appropriate procedures under the collective agreement and the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act.

However, to balance fairness and expedition, the Vice-Chair directed the union to provide a detailed statement of the complainant's expected evidence before making a final ruling on whether oral testimony would be necessary.

The union filed grievances regarding the employer's failure to canvass all classified correctional officers for available escort duty shifts.

The parties asked the Grievance Settlement Board to determine two preliminary questions regarding the application of provincial agreements, without considering local conditions.

The Board held that prior to the implementation of the 'hands-up' system, the employer was obligated to canvass classified correctional officers for escort duty even if they had not indicated their availability, following the precedent in Megahy.

Furthermore, the Board found that the July 2004 Memorandum of Settlement did not immediately implement the hands-up system; rather, the system only became effective once the computerized Provincial Overtime Protocol was fully implemented.

The parties disputed whether the grievor posed a safety risk if returned to work, following an independent medical examination by a forensic psychiatrist.

The arbitrator reviewed the medical report, which concluded that the grievor did not present an acute risk in the short term and was unlikely to overtly threaten others or act out physically in the long term, despite potential interpersonal struggles and parasuicidal gestures.

The arbitrator found that the most reasonable interpretation of the report was that there is no safety risk if the grievor is returned to work.

The grievor, an employee of the Ministry of Education, sought long-term disability benefits after going off work due to depression and post-traumatic stress disorder following a sexual assault.

The insurer denied benefits on the basis that her level of impairment was not consistent with an inability to perform her duties and that her absence was merely preventative pending the criminal trial of her assailant.

The Grievance Settlement Board reviewed the medical documentation, including reports from her treating physicians and an independent medical evaluator, and found that her symptoms were real and her fear of failing at work again was a legitimate stressor.

The Board concluded she was unable to perform the essential duties of her position and allowed the grievance, entitling her to benefits for the disputed period.

The grievor, a Correctional Officer, filed a grievance alleging that the employer breached the collective agreement and human rights policy by denying her overtime.

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

The Vice-Chair found no evidence or argument supporting the human rights allegations and denied the grievance.

The union filed two grievances on behalf of a correctional officer.

The first grievance alleged a breach of a 2008 settlement agreement regarding notification of available positions.

The arbitrator dismissed this grievance as untimely, as it was filed almost three years after the employer's obligation expired.

The second grievance challenged a three-day suspension for an incident in January 2014.

The arbitrator found just cause for discipline based on the evidence but reduced the suspension to two days, noting the grievor's previously discipline-free record.

During a group grievance arbitration alleging the employer failed to make reasonable provisions for the health and safety of Environmental Officers, the union sought disclosure of a Crown brief from a related prosecution under the Nutrient Management Act.

The Crown consented to disclosure but required an order from the Board due to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Board ordered the production of the Crown brief subject to conditions restricting its use to the arbitration and requiring the redaction of irrelevant third-party personal information.

The Union filed grievances alleging harassment and claiming the grievor's resignation was not voluntary.

The Employer sought to have the issue of just cause for termination heard in the alternative, proposing a two-stage hearing process.

The Union opposed hearing the just cause issue and sought production of certain documents.

The Grievance Settlement Board ruled that the just cause issue would be heard in the alternative if the resignation was found to be involuntary, adopting the Employer's proposed two-stage procedure.

The Board also ordered the production of requested staff schedules and overtime records, but limited the timeframe to the period when the relevant manager was employed.