OGSB 2015

The Union filed a grievance on behalf of four female Correctional Officers alleging the Employer failed to equally distribute overtime during their temporary assignment at the Vanier Centre for Women.

The grievors argued they lost overtime opportunities because they were not provided with young offender training, relying on a Memorandum of Agreement.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the grievors were temporarily assigned to the Centre for Women, not the Young Offender Unit, and therefore the provision requiring training did not apply to them.

The grievor filed grievances alleging the Employer failed to accommodate his disability by denying him health reassignment to three disputed positions: Customer Care Team Advisor, Administrative Assistant, and Correspondence Coordinator.

The parties agreed to a written hearing protocol to determine solely whether the grievor was qualified for these positions.

The Vice-Chair assessed the grievor's skills and experience against the minimum necessary qualifications for each role.

The Vice-Chair found the grievor was not qualified for the Customer Care Team Advisor or Correspondence Coordinator positions, dismissing those portions of the grievances.

However, the Vice-Chair concluded the grievor possessed the minimum necessary qualifications for the Administrative Assistant position, remitting that matter back to the parties for discussion.

The grievor, a 65-year-old male Court Clerk and Registrar, filed a grievance alleging discrimination on the basis of age and gender after not being scheduled for assignments in Family Court.

The employer maintained that assignments were based on operational needs, skills, and abilities, and that the grievor lacked the required skills and had refused further training.

The Grievance Settlement Board found no objective evidence to support the grievor's subjective belief of discrimination.

The evidence showed that male employees were not assigned fewer hours overall and that age was not a factor in scheduling.

The grievance was dismissed.

The union filed a grievance alleging harassment and failure to provide a healthy and safe work environment.

The employer raised preliminary objections to certain particulars filed by the union, arguing they related to a previously settled grievance and to post-grievance conduct.

The Grievance Settlement Board upheld the employer's objections, striking the particulars.

The Board held that the sanctity of settlements precluded the union from resurrecting issues from a withdrawn grievance, even without explicit release language.

Furthermore, the post-grievance conduct involving a different manager nine months later was deemed inadmissible as it could not establish a pattern of harassment relevant to the original grievance.

The grievor, a fixed-term Correctional Officer, filed a grievance alleging she should have been rolled-over into the classified service.

She relied on a document provided to her to confirm her actual hours, which mistakenly stated 'Date converted from Unclassified to Classified 1-April – 13'.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that the notation was a clerical error and that the grievor did not have sufficient hours worked to qualify for the roll-over compared to other fixed-term employees.

The union filed grievances alleging the employer violated the collective agreement by failing to provide notice of scheduling changes when the grievors were reassigned to the Toronto South Detention Centre during a restructuring.

The employer argued there was no schedule change because there was no posted schedule for the grievors at their previous facility beyond their reporting date, and they were notified of their new reporting time in advance.

Relying on a previous decision involving similar facts, the arbitrator agreed with the employer and dismissed the grievances.

The grievor sought special and compassionate leave under the collective agreement to care for her sick child after the daycare refused to accept him.

The employer denied the leave for the second day of absence, questioning the grievor about alternative childcare arrangements and suggesting she use vacation credits or take unpaid leave.

The Grievance Settlement Board upheld the grievance, finding that the employer failed to properly exercise its discretion.

The Board held that while inquiring about alternative childcare was relevant, the employer ignored the grievor's responses and improperly considered the availability of vacation credits, which the collective agreement explicitly stated should not affect the granting of such leave.

The union filed grievances on behalf of Transportation Enforcement Officers alleging that the employer violated the collective agreement by designating the 407 Electronic Toll Road as a separate district for overtime distribution.

The union argued that this designation unfairly deprived officers in adjacent districts of overtime opportunities, relying on the test for discretionary management decisions.

The employer maintained that the designation was a valid exercise of management rights made for legitimate billing and operational reasons.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievances, finding that the employer's decision was made in good faith for legitimate business reasons and did not violate the collective agreement's requirement for fair and equitable overtime distribution within a local workplace.

The union grieved the employer's unilateral decision to restrict operational staff from starting work before 7:30 a.m., alleging it breached the collective agreement's provisions on start times and constituted bargaining in bad faith.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the bad faith bargaining allegation, finding it fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

However, the Board held that the employer breached the collective agreement by imposing a blanket restriction on start times without engaging in the required individual meetings to consider business needs and seniority.

The grievance was allowed in part, and the employer was directed to consider start time requests on an individual basis.

The union brought a motion arguing that the grievor's acquittal on criminal charges for assaulting an inmate was dispositive of his grievances regarding his dismissal and the employer's refusal to indemnify his legal fees.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the motion, finding that an acquittal in a criminal trial is not binding on civil or arbitration proceedings due to the different standards of proof and purposes of the proceedings.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued a case management order consolidating multiple grievances filed by the union on behalf of the grievor up to April 22, 2015.

The Board directed the union to provide supplementary particulars and scheduled the next hearing date to address the employer's obligation to file reply particulars and other preliminary matters.

The parties participated in an expedited mediation-arbitration process at the St. Lawrence Valley Correctional and Treatment Centre.

Two grievances regarding accommodation and overtime distribution remained unresolved.

The Board issued a procedural decision establishing a timeline for the parties to exchange facts and written submissions before a final decision is rendered.

The employer brought two preliminary motions in a series of grievances alleging workplace harassment and discrimination.

The first motion argued that the union's particulars improperly expanded the scope of the grievances.

The Vice-Chair dismissed this motion, finding that a liberal reading of the grievances clearly indicated allegations of harassment and discrimination from the outset.

The second motion sought to limit the evidence to three years prior to the October 2013 grievance.

The Vice-Chair granted this motion in part, applying the Board's general three-year guideline but calculating it from the date of the first grievance in December 2012, while leaving open the possibility of admitting evidence of a specific 2004 incident if deemed relevant at the hearing.

The Employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss a grievance challenging a 15-day suspension on the basis that it was filed more than three months late.

The Union argued that the time limits should be extended under s. 48(16) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Grievance Settlement Board considered the Schiff factors and found that the length and seriousness of the discipline, the grievor's lack of responsibility for the delay, and the absence of substantial prejudice to the Employer justified extending the time limits.

The Employer's motion to dismiss the grievance was denied.

The union alleged that the employer breached a Memorandum of Settlement (MOS) regarding the grievor's panel assignment and sick leave credits.

The MOS provided that on the next occasion to change panels, the grievor would have the option to have one of her newly appointed judges reassigned.

The employer complied with this in 2014.

In 2015, the employer reassigned the grievor's panel again due to operational reasons.

The Vice-Chair found that the MOS only applied to the next occasion of reassignment, which occurred in 2014, and placed no constraints on future reassignments.

The Vice-Chair also found no evidence that the employer failed to restore the sick leave credits.

The grievance was dismissed.

The Grievance Settlement Board heard representations from the union and the employer regarding proceeding with a scheduled hearing.

The Board ordered the hearing scheduled for June 3, 2015, to be adjourned to October 19, 2015.

The union filed two group grievances on behalf of courtroom registrars employed as flexible part-time staff.

The first grievance sought reimbursement for the cost of cleaning robes, which the employer had ceased paying.

The second grievance alleged that the employer failed to distribute overtime hours fairly and equitably.

The arbitrator dismissed both grievances, finding no provisions in the collective agreement that conferred a right to reimbursement for cleaning robes or a right to fair and equitable distribution of overtime for flexible part-time employees.

The union filed grievances alleging excessive discipline and a failure to provide a workplace free of discrimination and harassment.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to strike out aspects of the union's claims and limit evidence regarding prior incidents.

The Grievance Settlement Board ruled that evidence of matters already determined by the Board or settled would not be entertained to avoid re-litigation.

However, evidence regarding a 2010 incident was permitted as it fell within the generally accepted three-year rule for establishing a course of harassing or discriminatory conduct.

The union alleged that the employer breached a Minute of Settlement by inadvertently processing a payment for retraining expenses as wages, resulting in improper deductions, and by delaying the provision of required information.

The union sought damages and an order for payment within 7 days.

The arbitrator ordered the employer to rectify the payment error within 14 days and provide a clarifying letter, but declined to award damages because the breaches were inadvertent.

The union brought a motion for summary judgment alleging the employer breached minutes of settlement.

The settlement placed the grievor in a 12-month temporary assignment as a Probation and Parole Officer, requiring him to complete training and meet job requirements to become permanent, or be returned to his home position as a Correctional Officer.

The grievor remained in the temporary assignment for 21 months before being returned to his home position.

The union argued that by keeping him beyond 12 months, the employer deemed him permanent.

The arbitrator dismissed the motion, finding that the settlement language did not create an automatic deeming provision and that whether the grievor met the job requirements remained a factual issue to be tried.