OGSB 2015

In a discharge grievance for innocent absenteeism, the Grievance Settlement Board issued interim directions requiring the grievor to attend Narcotics Anonymous and enroll in a minimum three-week residential treatment program.

The arbitration was adjourned pending the completion of the residential treatment, with the condition that failure to comply would result in the arbitration proceeding based on the evidence to date.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of a fixed-term medical clerk who claimed she should have been converted to a full-time classified position after working in the same role for over 18 months.

The employer had decided to make the position full-time and posted it after the grievor had worked for 13 months, simultaneously giving her notice of termination.

Although her contract was subsequently extended so that she worked a total of 18 months, she applied for the posted position and was unsuccessful.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the employer exercised its management rights appropriately by posting the position before the grievor reached the conversion threshold, and the subsequent contract extension did not entitle her to automatic conversion.

The grievor filed a grievance alleging that his supervisor improperly assigned work contrary to usual practice and policy, and threatened him by telling him to 'watch' him.

The matter proceeded through an Expedited Mediation-Arbitration process.

The Grievance Settlement Board found no violation of the Collective Agreement, noting that the grievor was not disciplined and that the supervisor's direction and comments were not improper or threatening.

The grievance was denied.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued a procedural order establishing a timetable for the delivery of written particulars, document disclosure, and the identification of preliminary issues in relation to the grievor's grievances.

During an arbitration regarding a health and safety work refusal, the employer requested an adjournment of a scheduled hearing date.

The employer argued it did not have sufficient time to prepare for cross-examination because it received the union witness's 32-page will-say statement only the day before the hearing.

The Vice-Chair granted the adjournment, finding it would be unfair to compel the employer to proceed with cross-examination under the circumstances.

The Union sought clarification and production of additional documents regarding the implementation of a Memorandum of Settlement.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the Employer to investigate and produce arguably relevant documents.

To expedite the hearing, the Board directed the Union to prepare a summary of work assignments and imposed confidentiality conditions on the produced documents, including an implied undertaking and a restriction that the Complainant not receive copies of the documents.

In a grievance arbitration where the Grievor alleged the Employer's actions caused her harm, a dispute arose over the disclosure of the Grievor's medical records from 2004 to 2007.

The Union consented to provide records from 2007 onwards but objected to earlier records.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered that the disputed medical records be made available exclusively to the Employer's counsel to determine if they are useful and necessary to the substantive issues.

The Board reasoned that the Employer was entitled to review the records given the allegations of harm and indications of pre-existing issues, subject to strict confidentiality conditions.

The employer sought a declaration that the parties had reached a binding settlement of a grievance.

The parties had agreed on monetary terms, and the union forwarded draft minutes of settlement.

The employer did not sign the draft but returned an amended version containing new terms, including a comprehensive release and a confidentiality clause.

The union rejected the amended version.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that the new terms proposed by the employer were substantive and controversial, not mere modifications.

Because the employer declined to sign the union's draft and instead proposed new substantive terms, no binding settlement had crystallized.

The employer's request was dismissed.

The union filed a grievance alleging that an Area Manager made a comment during a staff meeting suggesting that senior employees come with 'baggage and issues' when discussing how a vacant position would be filled.

The arbitrator found that the comment could be interpreted to mean the employer would not consider older workers, amounting to a breach of the Human Rights Code.

A declaration was issued that the employer breached the non-discrimination clause of the collective agreement.

The Union grieved that the Employer breached a Memorandum of Settlement by paying the grievor at her current rate of pay rather than placing her on the wage grid corresponding to her agreed-upon continuous service date.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the clear and unambiguous language of the settlement agreement expressly preserved the grievor's current conditions of employment, which included her current rate of pay and progression.

The employer requested an order for particulars and disclosure regarding a group grievance filed by Probation and Parole Officers.

The union requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing to obtain the necessary information.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the union to provide particulars and make disclosure by March 20, 2015, failing which the grievance would be dismissed.

The union filed a group grievance raising health and safety concerns regarding light levels in the workplace.

During a mediation-arbitration, the Grievance Settlement Board issued an interim direction ordering the parties to contact the Ministry of Labour for clarification of a previous order regarding light levels.

In the interim, the Board directed that the workplace blinds be closed between 7:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m.

The grievor, a Team Leader at a Small Claims Court, was denied special and compassionate leave for two days following a severe ice storm.

On the first day, she reported to work but found the building closed due to a power outage; she refused to report to an alternate location citing safety concerns.

On the second day, she remained home to care for her children while her husband sought a power source.

The Grievance Settlement Board found no violation of the collective agreement, noting the employer's exercise of discretion in assessing compassionate leave requests, and dismissed the grievance.

The grievor arrived at work following a severe ice storm to find the courthouse closed due to a power outage.

After waiting at a nearby restaurant, the employer directed the staff to report to an alternate courthouse downtown.

The grievor declined to go, citing health and safety concerns regarding travel and parking, and subsequently requested special and compassionate leave for the day.

The employer denied the request.

The Grievance Settlement Board, issuing a decision without precedent or prejudice as requested by the parties, found no violation of the collective agreement and dismissed the grievance.

The grievor, a Client Services Representative, sought special and compassionate leave after her workplace was closed due to a power outage following a severe ice storm.

The employer directed staff to an alternate courthouse, but the grievor refused to go, citing health and safety concerns regarding travel, and went home instead.

The employer denied her request for compassionate leave for the missed time.

The Grievance Settlement Board found no violation of the collective agreement, noting the employer's exercise of management rights and discretion in assessing the leave request, and dismissed the grievance.

The union filed several grievances on behalf of the grievor alleging violations of the Human Rights Code, the Occupational Health and Safety Act, and the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act regarding her workplace accommodation for mental health disabilities.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued a decision resolving all grievances, ordering a period of sick leave for medical adjustment, followed by a structured return to work with specific accommodations including a three-day work week, regular feedback, and external facilitation.

The employer was also ordered to pay $2,000 in general damages to assist in the grievor's recovery.

The grievor filed multiple grievances alleging that the Employer violated the collective agreement by bypassing him for overtime opportunities at the Hamilton Wentworth Detention Centre.

The parties participated in an expedited mediation-arbitration process.

The Vice-Chair found no violation of the collective agreement and dismissed the grievances without reasons, in accordance with the negotiated protocol.

The Employer sought an order for particulars and the production of arguably relevant documents from the Union in relation to a labour grievance.

The Grievance Settlement Board granted the request, ordering the Union's counsel to provide the requested particulars and documents to the Employer's counsel by a specified date.

The grievor, a Financial Bookkeeper, attended her workplace on December 23 and 24, 2013, following a severe ice storm, but found the building closed due to a power outage.

After waiting for instructions and receiving none, she went home on both days.

The employer denied her request for special and compassionate leave.

The Grievance Settlement Board granted the grievance, ordering the employer to reimburse the grievor for her loss of pay or benefits for those two days.

The parties agreed to consolidate nine grievances before the Grievance Settlement Board.

The Board issued a procedural order establishing a timetable for the union to deliver written particulars of its allegations of fact and for the employer to provide notice of any preliminary objections.