OGSB 2015

The union grieved the employer's unilateral decision to end a long-standing policy allowing employees and retirees to be occasionally accompanied by one non-paying guest on GO Transit.

The union argued the collective agreement's reference to 'transportation services' was ambiguous and should be interpreted in light of past practice, or alternatively, that the employer was estopped from changing the policy until the agreement expired.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding the collective agreement language unambiguously applied only to the cardholders themselves.

The Board also held that the doctrine of estoppel did not apply because the benefit was not part of standard compensation for work performed and its 'occasional' nature was too imprecise to enforce.

The Grievor, a probationary Mining Inspector, was released from employment ten days before the end of his probationary period.

The Union grieved the release, arguing it did not meet the requirements for a probationary release or, alternatively, was a reprisal under the Occupational Health and Safety Act for raising a safety concern about riding in the back seat of a truck.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the Employer did not need to establish just cause for a probationary release.

The Board concluded the Employer's decision was bona fide, non-disciplinary, made in good faith, and based on reasonable concerns regarding the Grievor's interpersonal skills, professionalism, and conduct during training.

The Board also found no causal nexus between the Grievor's health and safety concern and his termination.

The grievance was dismissed.

The Union requested an adjournment sine die of four grievances, including a discharge grievance, pending the receipt of medical information regarding the grievor's ability to participate in the hearing.

The Employer opposed the adjournment and moved to dismiss the grievances summarily, noting the grievor's failure to comply with a prior Board order to provide medical documentation.

The Grievance Settlement Board denied the adjournment and dismissed the grievances, finding no timely medical evidence to substantiate the grievor's inability to participate, especially given her concurrent ability to pursue litigation in the courts.

The Union filed grievances on behalf of several residential counselors following the closure of the Rideau Regional Centre and Huronia Regional Centre.

The grievors alleged that the Employer improperly surplussed them and failed to inform them of the option to take an unpaid leave of absence to bridge their service to qualify for the Surplus Factor 80 pension option.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievances, finding no violation of the collective agreement and no bad faith on the part of the Employer.

The Board held that the Employer was not obligated to inform employees of the leave of absence option to reach Surplus Factor 80, and the grievors' failure to qualify was due to timing rather than differential treatment.

The parties entered into a Memorandum of Settlement but unanticipated circumstances arose regarding its interpretation and implementation.

Following a telephone conference, the Vice-Chair ordered that the terms of the settlement be held in abeyance pending further discussions between the parties, to be scheduled after April 30, 2016.

The parties reached an impasse regarding the implementation of Minutes of Settlement, specifically the selection of a mutually agreeable reclining chair to accommodate the grievor's medical condition.

Following a conference call, the Vice-Chair ordered the employer to provide the specific Reclina-Pedic chair that had been approved by the grievor's family physician.

The grievor's position was declared surplus, and she sought to exercise her displacement rights under the collective agreement to bump into an Assessment Officer position.

The employer denied the displacement, arguing she was not qualified to perform the core duties of the role, specifically the independent adjudication of complex surgical claims.

The Grievance Settlement Board applied the established test requiring a surplus employee to demonstrate the present ability to perform all major components of the job at a minimum level of competence without a training period.

The Board found that while the grievor had extensive experience as a Claims Assessor, the Assessment Officer role required specialized skills and months of on-the-job training to adjudicate complex claims independently.

As the grievor could not perform this core function without training, the grievance was dismissed.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued a written decision confirming an earlier oral ruling that granted parts of the grievances and dismissed others.

The Board remained seized with respect to the interpretation and implementation of the order.

The employer brought a motion to dismiss the grievances after the grievor failed to attend a scheduled hearing date.

During the proceedings, the employer withdrew its position.

The Vice-Chair ordered the parties to set new hearing dates, required the union to summons the grievor, and stipulated that no further adjournments would be granted for the grievor's non-attendance absent compelling reasons.

In a grievance concerning whether certain employees were excluded from the bargaining unit following an employer restructuring that eliminated 'HR Ontario', the parties disputed the order of proceeding and the burden of proof.

The Grievance Settlement Board declined to determine the onus of proof as a preliminary matter, reserving it until all evidence was heard.

However, the Board ordered the employer to proceed first with its evidence, finding that the employer possessed the specific and complete information regarding the restructuring and the duties of the individuals in question, making it fairer and more efficient for the employer to present its case first.

The union grieved a five-day suspension imposed on the grievor for possessing and using a cellphone while on duty and failing to follow a manager's directive.

The parties agreed to a bottom-line decision.

The arbitrator found just cause for discipline but reduced the penalty to a one-day suspension.

The grievor, a Correctional Officer, filed a grievance alleging that the Employer's Attendance Support Management Program caused a co-worker to attend work while ill, which subsequently caused the grievor to become ill.

The grievor sought removal from the program and an order for the Employer to send ill employees home.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding no medical evidence linking the grievor's illness to the co-worker and concluding there was no violation of the Collective Agreement.

The grievor was subject to an accommodation arrangement enabling her to work in Probation & Parole on secondment.

The Ministry required her to return to her home position as a Rehabilitation Officer at the Toronto South Detention Centre due to asserted operational urgency, which the union disputed.

Pending full consideration of the grievance, the Grievance Settlement Board issued interim directions extending the secondment briefly to allow for training completion and case transfer, mandating vacation use, and setting conditions for her return to the home position.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to bifurcate the proceeding, arguing that the Board should first determine its motion that the Board was functus officio regarding the scope of the bargaining unit before hearing the merits of the grievance relating to the inclusion/exclusion of seven specific positions.

The union opposed bifurcation.

The Board reviewed the arbitral jurisprudence on bifurcation and concluded that while the preliminary issue was separate and distinct from the merits, bifurcating the proceeding would not result in any saving of time or resources, nor would it dispose of the entire grievance.

The Board declined to exercise its discretion to bifurcate the proceeding and directed that all issues be heard together.

The grievor, a maintenance worker, alleged that the Employer failed to call him for overtime on the August paid holiday in 2012.

The matter proceeded through an expedited mediation-arbitration process.

The arbitrator found that the maintenance department's sign-up sheet did not indicate the grievor had made himself available to work on the paid holiday in question.

The grievance was denied.

The grievor, a Food Services Officer, fell from a ladder at work and broke her wrist.

She received benefits under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act (WSIA).

The union filed a grievance alleging the employer breached the Occupational Health and Safety Act by providing an improper ladder, seeking compensation for the difference between her WSIA benefits and normal wages.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, holding that section 26(2) of the WSIA codifies the 'historic trade-off' and precludes the Board from awarding additional compensation for a workplace injury beyond the statutory benefits.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of an unclassified correctional officer after the employer refused to approve a shift exchange.

The grievor, scheduled for a 4-hour shift, agreed to exchange shifts with another officer scheduled for a 12-hour shift who could not work due to childcare commitments.

The employer denied the exchange because the shifts were of unequal length, and instead split the 12-hour shift between two employees according to the protocol for assigning available hours.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding the employer's decision was reasonable and consistent with its obligation under the local agreement to distribute available hours of work to unclassified correctional officers in a fair and equitable manner.

The grievor, a Provincial Prosecutor, filed three grievances alleging the Employer breached the collective agreement and the Travel, Meal and Hospitality Expenses Directive by denying her meal claims while travelling.

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

The Vice-Chair directed that the meal claims be remitted back to the Employer for consideration in accordance with the collective agreement and the Directive.

The Employer requested further and better particulars regarding several grievances filed by the union on behalf of the grievor.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered a schedule for the Employer to request further particulars, for the Union to provide them, and for the Employer to identify any preliminary objections, with a hearing scheduled to address those objections.

The union filed grievances on behalf of employees in the Health Care Department at the Algoma Treatment and Remand Centre, alleging a poisoned work environment.

The parties participated in an expedited mediation-arbitration process but were unable to resolve these specific grievances.

The arbitrator heard from several employees who described ongoing incidents involving both management and co-workers.

Finding that workplace mediation would be the most beneficial solution, the arbitrator ordered the employer to retain an external mediator to conduct a non-punitive mediation involving all current employees of the department.