OGSB 2016

The union filed multiple grievances alleging that the grievor was improperly denied overtime on nineteen shifts because he was on modified work duties.

The matter proceeded through an expedited mediation-arbitration process.

The employer conceded that the grievor could have performed overtime work on nine of the dates.

The arbitrator concluded that the grievor should be compensated for an additional two shifts, awarding a total of 64 hours of overtime pay.

The Employer brought a motion arguing that the union's grievance regarding a letter of reprimand was inarbitrable due to a 13-month delay in referring it to arbitration.

The Union argued the Employer waived its right to object and requested an extension of time limits under section 48(16) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Grievance Settlement Board found no waiver, as the Employer had raised the timeliness objection well before mediation.

Applying the relevant factors, the Board declined to extend the time limit, noting the grievance's low level of seriousness and the lack of a satisfactory explanation for the extreme delay.

The Employer's motion was granted and the grievance was deemed withdrawn.

The union filed a grievance alleging the employer improperly excluded the grievor from a job competition for a service person position.

The grievor claimed he handed his resume and cover letter to a supervisor to pass along to the hiring manager, but he did not submit the required tracking form.

The arbitrator found that while the grievor likely handed the documents to the supervisor, there was no evidence the application was received by the hiring manager before the deadline.

The grievance was dismissed.

The union filed a grievance challenging a three-day suspension issued to the grievor.

The matter proceeded through an expedited mediation-arbitration process.

The Vice-Chair found that, given the grievor already had a one-day suspension on file for similar conduct, the three-day suspension was not unreasonable in the circumstances.

The grievance was dismissed.

The employer brought a motion to bifurcate the hearing of a union grievance concerning unilateral changes to post-retirement benefits.

The employer sought to have the Board first hear and determine its motion that the union had not made out a prima facie case for its contractual claims, based solely on the language of the collective agreement without extrinsic evidence.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the motion for bifurcation, finding that the union was entitled to adduce extrinsic evidence to support its position that post-retirement benefits were implicitly incorporated into the collective agreement.

The Board concluded that bifurcation would not result in efficiency, as the issues were intertwined and a decision on the preliminary motion would not dispose of the entire grievance, and would be unfair to the union.

The union grieved that the employee did not receive sufficient training on the Attendance Support and Management Program prior to its implementation.

The employee had been placed into level 3 of the program due to absences but was later removed based on his attendance history.

The Grievance Settlement Board found no breach of the collective agreement and dismissed the grievance.

The grievor filed a grievance claiming he was improperly issued a written reprimand for allegedly refusing to follow a direct order and sought payment for nine hours of lost time after being sent home.

The parties participated in an Expedited Mediation-Arbitration process.

The letter of reprimand was removed from the grievor's file.

The Vice-Chair declined to direct the employer to reimburse the grievor for the lost time and dismissed the grievance.

The union filed a grievance alleging the employer violated the collective agreement by declaring the grievor AWOL and issuing a letter of reprimand when she did not report to work after requesting time off to care for her spouse following knee surgery.

The matter proceeded via expedited mediation-arbitration.

The arbitrator found the employer's actions violated the collective agreement, noting that disciplining the employee in these circumstances was heavy-handed.

The grievance was allowed and the employer was directed to immediately remove the letter of reprimand from the grievor's file.

The grievor, a correctional services employee, filed a grievance alleging he was assaulted by an inmate and that the employer failed to comply with the Institutional Policy and Procedures Manual regarding threats against employees.

The matter proceeded via an expedited mediation-arbitration process.

The Vice-Chair directed the employer to comply with the policy, specifically requiring the superintendent or designate to determine whether to transfer the offender to another facility or relocate them internally to maintain staff safety.

The grievor filed a grievance claiming he was assaulted by an inmate and that the employer failed to comply with the Institutional Policy and Procedures Manual regarding threats against employees.

The parties participated in an Expedited Mediation-Arbitration process.

The Vice-Chair directed the employer to comply with the policy, specifically requiring the superintendent or designate to determine whether to transfer or internally relocate an offender when a threat is confirmed, and to make this decision as quickly as feasible.

The union filed a grievance alleging that the grievor was improperly denied vacation time.

The parties participated in an expedited mediation-arbitration process.

The arbitrator directed the employer to comply with the requirements of the vacation protocol.

The union filed a grievance alleging the grievor was improperly denied vacation time.

The matter proceeded via an expedited mediation-arbitration process.

The Grievance Settlement Board directed the employer to comply with the requirements of the vacation protocol.

The grievor filed a grievance claiming he was assaulted by an inmate and the employer failed to comply with the Institutional Policy and Procedures Manual regarding threats against employees.

The parties participated in an Expedited Mediation-Arbitration process.

The Vice-Chair directed the employer to comply with the policy, specifically requiring the superintendent or designate to determine whether to transfer or internally relocate an offender when a threat is confirmed, and to make this decision as quickly as feasible.

The union requested disclosure of the grievor's Ministry notebook in the context of a dismissal grievance.

Following communications between the parties, they jointly requested a consent order.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the employer to disclose the notebook, subject to redactions for relevance and confidentiality, and restricted its use to the present litigation.

A correctional officer filed a grievance alleging the employer breached the collective agreement by unreasonably denying a request for compassionate leave.

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

The arbitrator found no violation of the collective agreement or the Code and denied the grievance.

The Association requested the production of a pre-screening score sheet for all 37 applicants in a job posting grievance.

The grievor was one of five candidates selected for an interview based on the pre-screening scores.

The Employer resisted production, arguing the document was not arguably relevant because the final selection decision was based on interview performance and written work, not the pre-screening scores.

The Grievance Settlement Board denied the Association's request, finding that since the grievor was granted an interview and the pre-screening score was not relied upon by the selection committee in its ultimate decision, the score sheet had no arguable relevance to the grievance.

During a grievance arbitration regarding the grievor's termination, the Employer sought to introduce Letters of Counsel and emails previously given to the grievor to show he was aware of performance expectations.

The Union objected, arguing the documents were disclosed late, were stale-dated, and contained highly prejudicial, unproven facts.

The Vice-Chair balanced the probative value against the prejudice to the grievor and ruled that redacted versions of the documents, which removed the specific factual background but retained the performance expectations, would be admitted into evidence for that limited purpose.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of the grievor, claiming the employer violated the collective agreement in its calculation of her vacation pay and lieu time.

The parties participated in an expedited mediation-arbitration process.

The arbitrator directed the employer to pay the grievor 22 hours of pay at the straight time hourly rate.

The employer brought preliminary motions to strike various particulars in a grievance arbitration concerning the denial of training and job opportunities to the grievor.

The Grievance Settlement Board excluded hearsay evidence, evidence of a settled health and safety grievance, and evidence of a prior tuition denial, finding them irrelevant or insufficient to show a prima facie case of retaliation.

However, the Board allowed the union to lead evidence of alleged nepotism, finding the particulars sufficient to shift the onus to the employer.

The Board also denied the union's request to refer a 2012 grievance to arbitration due to a four-year delay.

The union filed a grievance alleging that the employer violated the collective agreement by suspending the grievor for five days without pay.

The parties participated in an expedited mediation-arbitration process.

The arbitrator denied the grievance, finding no violation of the collective agreement.