OGSB 2014

The Union referred a grievance to arbitration beyond the time limits set out in the collective agreement.

The Employer raised a preliminary objection regarding timeliness.

The Union argued the Employer waived its right to object by failing to raise the issue in a timely manner and by taking fresh steps, including participating in mediation and scheduling hearing dates.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the Employer's general reservation of rights was insufficient notice of a timeliness objection.

Because the Employer waited many months before specifying its objection, it waived its right to object.

The preliminary objection was dismissed.

At the outset of a hearing regarding a grievance over a displacement opportunity following a layoff, the Union raised a preliminary issue requesting that the Employer be ordered to proceed first with its evidence.

The Union argued this would be more efficient and fair given the Employer's discretion in denying the redeployment.

The Employer objected, arguing the Union must first establish a prima facie case that the grievor was qualified.

The Board denied the Union's request, finding no reason to depart from the usual practice of requiring the Union to present its evidence first in non-disciplinary cases.

The Union filed a grievance alleging the Employer breached Article 9 of the Collective Agreement and the Health and Safety Contractor Policy when concrete grinding resulted in dust and particulates entering work areas.

The Employer acknowledged it did not take sufficient precautions.

The Grievance Settlement Board declared the Employer breached Article 9 and directed the parties to consult on implementing the policy's procedures.

The parties agreed to a procedural protocol to marshal further discussions and evidence regarding a grievance alleging contravention of the Employer's Workplace Discrimination and Harassment Policy.

The Vice-Chair confirmed the protocol as an order of the Grievance Settlement Board, setting deadlines for settlement proposals, exchange of particulars, documentary disclosure, and scheduling of the formal hearing.

The union filed a grievance alleging that the employer used inmates to perform unionized housekeeping work over the Christmas vacation time.

The matter proceeded through an expedited mediation-arbitration process.

The arbitrator reviewed the facts and submissions and dismissed the grievance without reasons, in accordance with the negotiated protocol.

The parties submitted joint written submissions requesting that the Employment Screening Checks Operational Guidelines be constituted as an order of the Grievance Settlement Board.

The Board granted the request and ordered the adoption of the guidelines, which establish an expedited appeal process for regular employees who are denied security clearance for their home positions.

The grievor, a Correctional Officer, filed two grievances alleging the employer violated the collective agreement by denying her a trainer position and failing to register her in certain training courses.

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

The arbitrator found no merit to the grievances and dismissed them.

The union filed two grievances on behalf of the grievor.

The first alleged that a supervisor performed bargaining unit work by writing a report containing incorrect statements.

The second alleged that an email reminding the grievor to sign in for her shift constituted discipline, harassment, and anti-union animus.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed both grievances, finding no violation of the collective agreement regarding the first grievance and concluding that the email in the second grievance was not disciplinary and lacked any improper motive.

The union filed a grievance alleging the employer violated the collective agreement by failing to consider the grievor a Qualified Candidate for a Senior Investigator vacancy.

The grievor claimed he held the 'same job' when he worked as an Investigator for 19 months in the early 1990s.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that the Investigator and Senior Investigator were distinct positions with different levels of experience and leadership responsibilities.

Furthermore, the Senior Investigator job had significantly changed since the 1990s due to the implementation of Bill 15, which required investigators to perform new duties under the Provincial Offences Act.

The grievor was hired in 2003, resigned in January 2005, and was rehired in March 2005.

In March 2008, the grievor filed a grievance challenging his 2005 resignation and requesting a revised seniority date based on his original hire date.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that it was filed significantly beyond the permitted time limit.

The Union filed a policy grievance alleging the Employer violated the collective agreement by denying requests for union leave for members to prepare for upcoming contract negotiations.

The Employer argued that 'participating in negotiations' under article 5.6 only covered attendance at face-to-face bargaining sessions.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that 'participating in negotiations' must be broadly construed to encompass preparation for negotiations, given the complexity of bargaining and the core representational function it serves.

The grievance was upheld, and the Employer was found to have breached the collective agreement by failing to exercise its discretion to consider the leave requests.

The union grieved the employer's assignment of overtime to evening shift employees rather than the grievors, who had worked the earlier day shift.

The employer argued that overtime was offered as a last resort and the actual requirements were not finalized until the end of the afternoon shift, making it premature to offer it to the day shift.

The arbitrator found that the employer did not violate the collective agreement in the circumstances and dismissed the grievance.

The union filed grievances alleging that the employer violated the collective agreement and the Occupational Health and Safety Act by imposing unjust discipline and engaging in workplace harassment during a staff meeting.

The meeting addressed employee misconduct, including sleeping on night shifts and abusing meal breaks.

The employer reminded nursing staff of their professional obligations to the College of Nurses of Ontario after some employees resisted the employer's directives.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievances, finding that the employer's comments were a reasonable and restrained response to inappropriate employee behaviour and did not constitute discipline, harassment, or intimidation.

The Grievance Settlement Board directed the union to provide the employer with full particulars of its claims by May 16, 2014.

The employer agreed to provide further information upon receipt of the particulars.

The Board also scheduled separate hearing dates for the two grievances.

The union filed a policy grievance challenging a new deportment policy unilaterally introduced by the employer.

Following an expedited arbitration process, the parties agreed to amendments to the policy.

The arbitrator issued a consent award declaring the amended policy to be reasonable, non-discriminatory, and compliant with the KVP test for unilaterally introduced employer rules.

The award fully disposed of the grievance.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of a correctional officer alleging that the employer breached Article COR 8.2.1 of the collective agreement.

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

The Grievance Settlement Board denied the grievance.

The grievor, a correctional officer, alleged that the employer breached Article 9 of the collective agreement.

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

The Grievance Settlement Board denied the grievance.

The union grieved the employer's interpretation of Article 16.02 of the collective agreement regarding paid leave for employees subpoenaed as witnesses.

The employer argued that paid leave only applied if the subpoena was for matters arising out of employment.

The arbitrator agreed with the union, finding that the phrase 'for matters arising out of their employment' only modified 'required in court' and not 'subpoenaed as a witness', as applying it to both would render the latter phrase superfluous.

The grievance was allowed.

The grievor, a classified Youth Services Officer, filed a grievance alleging that the Employer violated the Collective Agreement by failing to laterally transfer him to a facility in Sudbury to be closer to his son.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that there were no lateral transfers during the relevant time and concluded that there was no violation of the Collective Agreement.

The grievance was dismissed.

The Employer brought a motion to dismiss several grievances filed by employees whose Team Lead positions were declared surplus.

The Union alleged that the Employer improperly surplussed the employees by creating a new, higher-paying position with the same duties and responsibilities, thereby violating the Collective Agreement.

The Grievance Settlement Board denied the Employer's motion, finding that the Union's allegations disclosed an arguable case of an improper lay-off.

The matter was directed to continue on its merits.