OGSB 2016

The Employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the first of nine grievances alleging workplace harassment, bullying, and discrimination, arguing it was filed outside the collective agreement's time limits.

The Union argued the grievance was a continuing grievance and sought to adduce evidence of a pattern of harassment dating back to 2009.

The Arbitrator found the initial grievance was not a continuing grievance but a single act with continuing effects, and declined to extend the time limits under s. 48(16) of the Labour Relations Act due to substantial prejudice to the Employer.

The first grievance was dismissed, and the Union was precluded from adducing evidence prior to March 2016, striking paragraphs 2 to 26 of the Statement of Particulars.

The grievor grieved his discharge from employment.

The parties agreed to an expedited process and requested a bottom-line decision without reasons.

After reviewing an Agreed Statement of Facts, video clips, and viva voce evidence regarding the context, mitigating factors, and the grievor's remorse, the Vice-Chair substituted the termination with a suspension without compensation from March 31, 2016, to December 31, 2016.

The grievor was ordered reinstated with full seniority effective January 1, 2017.

A group of fixed-term correctional officers filed a grievance alleging the Employer violated the collective agreement by changing their holiday work schedules without verbal confirmation.

The Employer did not dispute the lack of personal contact but argued against the requested compensation.

The Grievance Settlement Board found the Employer breached its obligations under the collective agreement regarding schedule changes.

However, the Board declined to award the requested compensatory penalty, noting the parties had not negotiated a penalty for this specific violation.

The grievor, a correctional officer, filed a grievance alleging the employer breached the collective agreement by imposing a five-day suspension for his conduct during a work refusal.

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

The arbitrator substituted the five-day suspension with a three-day suspension and ordered the employer to compensate the grievor for two days' pay.

The grievor, a Fixed-Term Correctional Officer, claimed entitlement to overtime pay for working in excess of 40 hours during a week that included Christmas Day and Boxing Day.

The grievor was paid at two times his basic hourly rate for the hours worked on the holidays.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that while the grievor worked more than 40 hours, the hours that triggered the overtime entitlement were worked on Boxing Day.

Because the collective agreement expressly forbids the pyramiding of premium payments, the grievor could not claim overtime pay for the same hours he was already receiving holiday premium pay.

The grievor, a Correctional Officer, resigned her classified position in 2008 and immediately began working as an unclassified officer.

In 2016, she was rolled over into classified status and filed a grievance alleging her continuous service date was incorrect, arguing she should have been accommodated for family status in 2008 instead of resigning.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the grievor did not request an accommodation at the time and could not retroactively withdraw her resignation eight years later.

The Board affirmed that seniority accumulated during earlier service is not taken into account when an employee resigns.

The grievor, a housekeeper at the Toronto South Detention Centre, received a three-day suspension for subjecting a colleague to harassment, following a previous letter of reprimand for similar conduct.

The union filed a grievance asserting the discipline was without just cause.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that while discipline was justified, the three-day suspension was too severe.

The grievance was upheld in part, and the suspension was reduced to one day with compensation for the remaining two days.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of a fixed-term Correctional Officer who argued that her hours worked in previous regular classified positions should be included in the calculation of her hours for the purpose of roll-overs to regular classified employee status.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding nothing in the Collective Agreement or other agreements that entitled the grievor to have hours from other regular classified positions applied to her newly obtained fixed-term position.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of a correctional officer alleging the employer breached the collective agreement by imposing an eight-hour suspension.

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

The arbitrator substituted the eight-hour suspension with a letter of reprimand and ordered the employer to compensate the grievor for the eight hours.

The union grieved the employer's rejection of the grievor's application for a service person position, alleging the successful candidates were chosen based on nepotism.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the grievance, arguing the grievor was rejected because he failed the aptitude test and interview, and thus lacked the required qualifications under the collective agreement.

The Grievance Settlement Board granted the employer's motion and dismissed the grievance, finding that the union's allegations, even if proven, would not establish prima facie proof that the 2015 job competition was tainted by nepotism, and that the employer was entitled to rely on the grievor's test scores.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of a fixed-term correctional officer, disputing the calculation of her hours for the purpose of rolling over into a classified position.

The grievor alleged that her posted hours were missing 360.3 hours.

After reviewing the documents and medical information provided, the Grievance Settlement Board determined that the grievor should have received an additional 299.68 hours.

The grievance was upheld to that extent.

The grievor, a correctional officer with a workplace accommodation for a sinus condition sensitive to second-hand smoke, engaged in a work refusal after being assigned to a unit where she believed she would be exposed to smoke.

Due to severe operational pressures and labour unrest at the facility, the Employer failed to investigate her work refusal during her shift.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that while the Employer's failure to investigate was unreasonable and contravened section 43(3) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, there was no evidence of bad faith, harassment, or reprisal.

The Board granted declaratory relief but denied the Union's request for damages.

The grievor requested to personally withdraw the balance of her grievance to proceed before the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal, citing delays, travel costs, and a desire to represent herself.

The union did not request the withdrawal, and the employer opposed it.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the request, holding that only the union has carriage rights to withdraw a grievance, not an individual grievor.

The Board also noted that the issues already decided were related to the remaining issues, and issued procedural orders to expedite the remainder of the hearing.

The union filed a policy grievance regarding the entitlement of Fixed Term Correctional Officers to overtime pay under the collective agreement.

The Grievance Settlement Board previously ruled that overtime is payable when a fixed-term employee works in excess of a scheduled shift exceeding eight hours while backfilling for a regular employee.

In this decision, the Board applied that interpretation to five specific scheduling scenarios.

The Board found that overtime rates applied in four scenarios where hours were added to a scheduled backfill shift, regardless of whether the hours were added at the beginning or end, or with advance notice.

Overtime did not apply in the fifth scenario where the employee was scheduled for 'as needed' duties rather than backfilling a regularly scheduled shift.

The grievor, a Regular Part Time Cook 2, filed a grievance alleging the employer failed to convert her to full time classified status.

The grievor had been backfilling a full time position temporarily.

The employer argued she was not eligible for conversion because she was already a regular part time classified employee.

Furthermore, when the permanent position was posted, the grievor applied but refused to participate fully in the interview process.

The Grievance Settlement Board agreed with the employer, finding no violation of the collective agreement, and dismissed the grievance.

The Union grieved the termination of a Transit Safety Officer and brought a preliminary motion arguing the dismissal was void ab initio because the Employer relied on expired discipline.

The collective agreement contained a sunset clause requiring the removal of disciplinary records and letters of counsel after specified periods.

The decision-maker admitted to considering past customer complaints and an expired letter of counsel when deciding to terminate the Grievor for a use of force incident.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that the sunset clause was a mandatory substantive right and that the Employer's reliance on stale records violated the collective agreement.

The discharge was declared void ab initio, and the Grievor was reinstated with full compensation.

The grievor, a fixed-term Correctional Officer at the Thunder Bay Jail, filed a grievance alleging that her conversion to full-time classified status was unnecessarily delayed in violation of the collective agreement.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the grievor was ineligible for earlier roll-overs because she had not been employed at the facility for the required one-year period, and later because she had insufficient hours compared to others.

When she finally met the eligibility criteria, she was rolled over without undue delay.

The grievance was dismissed.

The grievor, a classified Personnel Clerk, took a leave of absence to complete Correctional Officer training and was subsequently hired as a fixed-term Correctional Officer.

He filed grievances claiming entitlement to classified status based on his prior service, reimbursement for training costs, and the right to hold both positions concurrently.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievances, finding no collective agreement provision entitling him to paid training or transfer of service/seniority to the new position, and noting the Board lacked jurisdiction to review the Employer's refusal to permit dual employment.

The grievor, a classified Correctional Officer at Toronto East Detention Centre, filed a grievance alleging that the Employer violated the Collective Agreement by not approving his transfer request to Central East Correctional Centre (CECC).

He argued that CECC was hiring new casual staff and transferring existing casual staff from TEDC to CECC while ignoring his seniority and lateral transfer request.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the grievor was not the most senior on the CECC Lateral Transfer List and that the transfer of fixed-term contracts from one institution to another had no effect on the Lateral Transfer List of classified Correctional Officers.

The grievance was dismissed.

The grievor, a Maintenance Mechanic, filed a grievance alleging the employer incorrectly applied his transition and relocation rights following the closure of the Toronto Jail, resulting in his assignment to a facility outside the usual 120-kilometer radius.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the grievor had signed an election for a lateral transfer listing four preferred institutions, and was permanently assigned to his fourth choice.

The Board concluded there was no violation of the collective agreement or any other agreement, as the assignment was based on the grievor's own specified choices and was final and binding.

The grievance was dismissed.