OGSB 2016

The grievor, a fixed term Correctional Officer who previously worked as a full-time OAG 8, filed a grievance alleging the employer violated the collective agreement by failing to credit her hours worked as an OAG 8 toward her Correctional Officer position for the purpose of upcoming roll-overs to regular classified status.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding nothing in the collective agreement or other agreements between the parties that entitled the grievor to have hours and service from her OAG position applied to her newly obtained Correctional Officer position.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of a Cook 2 employee who was reclassified to Helper, Food Services and subsequently denied a lateral transfer to a Cook 2 vacancy at another facility.

The union argued that a Memorandum of Agreement required the employer to consider reclassified employees for lateral transfers.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the agreement did not restrict the employer's management right to fill the vacancy through a job competition rather than utilizing the lateral transfer list.

In a grievance arbitration concerning a five-day suspension and allegations of harassment, two issues arose regarding document production.

The employer sought unredacted medical records of the grievor and the union's notes from interviews with coworkers, while the union sought to compel the employer to disclose the identity of any medical expert reviewing the records.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that the identity of the employer's medical expert is protected by litigation privilege.

The Board also found that the union's interview notes were not protected by litigation privilege, as their dominant purpose was preparation for an allegation meeting rather than litigation, and ordered their production at the close of the employer's case.

The employer requested to bifurcate the proceeding to hear a preliminary legal argument regarding the scope of the bargaining unit.

The Grievance Settlement Board had previously denied a similar request.

The employer argued that changed circumstances, specifically particulars provided by the union and the filing of two new policy grievances, warranted reconsideration.

The Board declined to exercise its discretion to bifurcate, citing policy concerns about halting proceedings midstream for reconsideration based on changed circumstances, and finding that the criteria for bifurcation were not substantially met as a favorable decision for the employer would not dispose of the entire grievance.

The union filed a grievance alleging that the grievor, a Cook 2, was improperly denied an overtime opportunity in December 2014.

The matter was heard at a med/arb session.

The arbitrator found that while the scheduling manager initially made an error regarding the scheduling of the overtime, the manager made all appropriate efforts in a timely fashion and scheduled the overtime in accordance with HPRO.

The grievance was dismissed.

The grievor, a Cook 2, filed a grievance regarding overtime.

A med/arb session was held, but the grievor did not attend and the union had no facts regarding the matter.

The employer requested that the grievance be dismissed due to the lack of attendance and information.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance.

The Union filed five grievances in 2014 on behalf of the grievor, alleging failure to accommodate and other employment-related disputes.

The Employer objected, arguing the grievances were resolved by a comprehensive Memorandum of Settlement signed in August 2012.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that four of the grievances related to facts and circumstances known to the grievor prior to the settlement and were thus fully resolved by its terms.

The fifth grievance was dismissed on the basis of res judicata, as it attempted to re-litigate a claim already decided on its merits.

All five grievances were dismissed.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of a fixed-term Youth Service Officer, alleging the employer improperly calculated her hours while she was absent due to a WSIB injury, which allegedly caused her to miss being rolled over into classified status.

At a med/arb session, the employer conceded it used the wrong formula to calculate the hours, but demonstrated that the incorrect formula actually placed the grievor in a more favourable position.

The arbitrator declared that the employer improperly calculated the hours but declined to order a recalculation, as the grievor had already been rolled over into a full-time classified position based on the inflated hours.

The grievance was upheld to the extent of the declaration.

The grievor, a fixed-term Youth Services Officer, filed a grievance alleging discrimination in work scheduling due to her pregnancy, claiming her shifts were frequently cancelled while other pregnant officers did not face cancellations.

The Employer demonstrated that the other pregnant officers were classified officers and that the grievor required more extensive accommodation.

The Vice-Chair found no violation of the Collective Agreement and dismissed the grievance.

The Association grieved the termination of the Complainant's employment at the Office of the Independent Police Review Director (OIPRD).

Based on the submissions of the parties, the Grievance Settlement Board ordered that the Complainant be reinstated to employment effective November 14, 2014.

The Board further ordered the OIPRD to redact the Complainant's name to reflect 'CSP' in a specific decision posted on its website.

The union grieved the discharge of a Fire Inspector, alleging it was without just cause and a reprisal for exercising rights under the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The union sought to adduce evidence of events dating back over a decade to establish a pattern of improper conduct.

The employer raised a preliminary objection, arguing the evidence should be limited to events occurring within three years of the grievance, relying on the Board's 'rule of thumb'.

The Board upheld the employer's objection, finding no reason to depart from the three-year rule and noting that many of the older events had already been the subject of prior complaints and settlements.

The Board restricted the evidence to events within three years of the grievance, with a limited exception allowing reliance on the documents establishing the prior settlements.

The union sought production of documents in the employer's possession.

The employer acknowledged relevance but notified the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) because the documents formed part of an ongoing criminal investigation.

The OPP opposed production, arguing it could compromise the investigation into potential arson and criminal negligence causing death.

Applying the Wagg test, the Grievance Settlement Board declined to order production at this time to protect the integrity of the ongoing investigation, but allowed the union to renew its request in six months or if circumstances materially change.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued a procedural order requiring the Union to provide full particulars of all allegations contained in three grievances by March 1, 2017.

The particulars are limited to events occurring after May 29, 2015, pursuant to prior Minutes of Settlement.

The Ministry was directed to advise the Union of any preliminary objections by April 1, 2017.

The grievor, a Youth Services Worker, was suspended for ten days following an incident at Brookside Youth Centre.

The union argued the incident resulted from the grievor exercising his right to refuse work due to health and safety concerns.

The arbitrator found that the grievor did not raise health and safety concerns at the time, but rather complained about the employer's failure to replace kitchen staff.

While the employer had just cause for discipline, the ten-day suspension was deemed excessive given the grievor's long service and clean disciplinary record.

The suspension was reduced to four days.

The Grievance Settlement Board held a case management conference call to set procedural directions for two related grievances where the interests of the grievors were partially adverse.

The Vice-Chair issued directions requiring the evidence in chief to take the form of declarations, setting limits on the time for oral evidence and cross-examination, and establishing a schedule for the exchange of documents and declarations.

The procedure was inspired by the summary trial process under Rule 76.12 of the Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure.

The union filed grievances alleging that the grievor was harassed and discriminated against for her union activity, and that she received a letter of warning without just cause.

Following a med/arb session, the Grievance Settlement Board found that the letter of warning was without just cause because the conduct at issue occurred while the grievor was acting in her union capacity.

The Board ordered the letter removed forthwith.

For the harassment grievance, the Board ordered the employer to provide and pay for a mediator to assist the grievor and her supervisor in improving their working relationship.

The grievances were upheld.

The grievor, a fixed-term Correctional Officer, applied for and accepted a full-time classified position at Bell Cairn.

Subsequently, a rollover exercise was completed at her previous location, Maplehurst Correctional Centre, but she was not rolled over.

The union grieved the denial.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that at the time of the rollovers, the grievor was already classified with a home position at Bell Cairn and was therefore ineligible for rollover.

Three Correctional Officers filed grievances alleging the Employer violated MERC agreements by failing to roll them over into classified status.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that two of the grievors did not reply to the Expression of Interest and the third applied beyond the closing date.

As they were not eligible for the roll-over at that time, the grievances were dismissed.

During mediation of a grievance regarding the denial of Long Term Income Protection (LTIP) benefits, it became apparent that the Union possessed medical documents not yet shared with the insurer or the Employer.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the Union to provide the undisclosed medical information, including clinical notes, to the insurer.

The matter was remitted to the Joint Insurance Benefits Review Committee, with the Employer reserving the right to argue the weight of the new information.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued a supplementary decision regarding the interpretation of a Memorandum of Agreement on compressed work weeks at the Elgin Middlesex Detention Centre.

The Union sought clarification on whether the Employer was required to backfill positions when a Correctional Officer was absent for a portion of their shift, and whether accommodated officers counted towards the 147 required positions.

The Board held that the Employer must make reasonable efforts to backfill significant absences, but not short, last-minute absences.

The Board also clarified that accommodated officers count towards the 147 positions only if they are working in a Correctional Officer position.