OGSB 2015

The union filed a grievance alleging the employer improperly denied the grievor the opportunity to move to the interview stage of a competition.

The parties agreed to the disclosure of POSI questions and scoring materials subject to certain conditions.

The Vice-Chair issued a consent order detailing the conditions for disclosure, including prohibitions on copying, returning materials after arbitration, and maintaining confidentiality.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued a without-reasons decision resolving 72 outstanding overtime grievances between the union and the employer.

The decision was the result of a Med/Arb process established by a Memorandum of Agreement to deal with overtime grievances on a regular basis.

The appendix lists the disposition of each grievance, with some allowed and paid at applicable overtime rates, and the majority dismissed.

The employer requested an adjournment of a scheduled hearing because its counsel was taking a new position and the file needed to be transferred to new counsel.

The union opposed the adjournment, citing concerns about delay.

The Vice-Chair granted the adjournment, finding that requiring the employer to begin calling evidence with one counsel and continue with another would place the new counsel at a disadvantage and compromise fair procedure.

The union filed a grievance claiming the grievor was owed $125.20 for travel expenses.

The employer agreed to pay the amount, and the grievor subsequently retired.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance as moot.

The parties sought an interpretation of Minutes of Settlement signed in February 2014.

The arbitrator determined that the amount referred to in Paragraph 1(b) of the settlement is a retiring allowance and therefore not subject to Employment Insurance (EI) or Canada Pension Plan (CPP) deductions.

The employer was ordered to pay the grievor the outstanding sum of $1,961.03.

Three grievors sought employer support for external training opportunities relevant to their jobs.

The employer allowed them to attend on paid work time but refused to cover the external training costs ($50 and $113).

The union grieved, arguing the employer improperly exercised its discretion by rigidly applying a policy against paying external training costs.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievances, finding that the collective agreement provided no right to training and the employer's decision was a pure exercise of management rights, unconstrained by the agreement and not subject to review absent bad faith.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of a correctional officer who received a twenty-day suspension for a workplace incident.

The matter proceeded through an expedited mediation-arbitration process.

The arbitrator found the incident was serious but noted mitigating factors, including the grievor's long service, lack of prior discipline, and acceptance of responsibility.

The arbitrator ordered the discipline reduced to a twelve-day suspension with appropriate compensation for the difference.

The union filed a grievance challenging the employer's application of the Attendance Support and Management Program (ASMP) to the grievor.

The grievor had missed partial days due to illness, which the employer treated as separate occurrences, accelerating her progression through the ASMP levels.

The union argued this was unreasonable and that the employer failed to exercise discretion.

The employer maintained that the ASMP thresholds were valid and previously upheld.

The arbitrator, proceeding under an expedited process without reasons, found no breach of the collective agreement and dismissed the grievance.

The grievor claimed the Employer contravened the Collective Agreement by failing to fill a permanent Desk Auditor position posted on March 7, 2014, using an eligibility list created from a previous competition.

The Employer argued the eligibility list had expired by the time authorization was obtained to fill the position following the targeted direct assignment process.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding the Employer's position had considerable merit and noting that, given the grievor's ranking on the list, she would not have been selected even if the list had been used.

The grievor, a Customer Care Representative with Service Ontario, was suspended for twenty days without pay following an incident of inappropriate call handling with a fragile caller.

The union grieved the quantum of discipline, arguing that the grievor's nineteen years of clean service should mitigate the penalty.

The arbitrator found that the grievor's conduct was serious and that she failed to show immediate remorse or report the incident.

The arbitrator concluded that the twenty-day suspension fell within the reasonable range of discipline and dismissed the grievance.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued an interim procedural order directing the employer to respond to the union's particulars and provide an investigation report into alleged harassment, subject to confidentiality undertakings.

The Board also set a timeline for additional document requests and responses, and directed the parties to explore settlement prior to the next hearing date.

The Grievance Settlement Board directed the employer to forthwith produce the accommodation files of three individuals to the Union.

In an expedited arbitration proceeding under the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act, the Grievance Settlement Board ordered the employer to pay $160.41, less statutory deductions, to each of the 48 named employees.

The union acknowledged that there were no further grievances of a like nature.

In an interim decision regarding a grievance arbitration for termination and discrimination, the Grievance Settlement Board ruled on procedural and production issues.

The Board ordered that the termination and discrimination grievances be heard consecutively rather than concurrently to avoid delaying the termination grievance.

The Board also ordered the employer to produce disciplinary records for specific individuals particularized by the union in support of its differential treatment claim, and directed the union to provide further particulars if additional production was sought.

The union requested an adjournment of an upcoming arbitration hearing because the grievor needed to travel to be with an ill relative.

The employer opposed the request, noting the hearing date was set with the grievor's input and no particulars were provided.

The Vice-Chair directed the grievor to provide specific details regarding the ill relative, the nature of the illness, and her travel plans before ruling on the adjournment request.

In a grievance arbitration, the employer sought compliance with a prior order for the production of the grievor's medical records.

The union advised that the grievor had initially refused to consent due to privacy concerns but was now prepared to do so.

The Vice-Chair noted that failure to produce relevant medical information could prejudice the grievor's case.

With the employer's consent, the Vice-Chair issued a revised order extending the deadlines for the grievor to provide consent and for the union to disclose the medical records to the employer.

The Union filed a grievance alleging that the Employer breached a Memorandum of Settlement (MOS) by appealing a WSIB decision regarding the grievor's continued loss of earnings.

The MOS settled all issues relating to the grievor's employment and termination, but preserved the grievor's rights under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the MOS was clear and unambiguous.

While the MOS prevented the grievor from seeking re-employment, it explicitly allowed either party to take a position on any other matter under the WSIA, including the employer's right to appeal the loss of earnings claim.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of a correctional officer who received a five-day suspension.

The matter proceeded through an expedited mediation-arbitration process.

The arbitrator found that while some discipline was appropriate, a five-day suspension was too severe given the mitigating factors and the employer's concession that the grievor acted in good faith without intent to improperly profit.

The discipline was reduced to a twelve-hour suspension, with the grievor to be compensated for lost income.

The employer brought a preliminary motion objecting to the Board's jurisdiction on the basis that the union's referral to arbitration was untimely.

The union conceded the referral was late but argued the employer waived its right to object.

The Board found that the employer failed to raise the timeliness objection regarding the referral for approximately one year, during which time it engaged in discussions about the merits, sought particulars, and scheduled arbitration dates.

The Board concluded these actions constituted a 'fresh step', thereby waiving the employer's right to rely on the time limits.

The employer's motion was dismissed and the grievance was ruled arbitrable.

The grievor alleged harassment and discrimination based on gender and union activity after the Employer opened her locker without consent.

The Employer had previously apologized, stating the opening was a mistake because there was no record of the grievor using that specific locker, despite her having informed an Operating Manager.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding no evidence of gender discrimination or anti-union animus, and concluding that the administrative mistake did not violate the Collective Agreement or any employment-related statute.