OGSB 2016

The union filed grievances on behalf of two Rehabilitation Officers who alleged they should have been given a temporary assignment as a Probation and Parole Officer instead of a less senior employee.

The union argued the assignment should have been posted under the collective agreement, or alternatively, that the employer exercised its discretion in bad faith by deliberately tilting the field in favour of the successful candidate.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the assignment was for less than six months and thus exempt from the posting requirements.

The Board also found that the employer's decision was made in good faith for genuine government purposes, based on the successful candidate's expressed interest, volunteer experience, and positive references, rather than any improper motive.

The grievances were dismissed.

The grievor, a surplus employee, filed a grievance alleging the employer improperly failed to assign her to the vacant position of Service Order Fulfillment Analyst (SOFA) via the Targeted Direct Assignment process under the collective agreement.

The employer determined she was not entry level qualified for the position.

The arbitrator found that the SOFA position is a highly technical role requiring expert knowledge of computers and active directories, which the grievor did not possess.

The grievance was denied as the grievor did not meet the entry level qualifications for the targeted direct assignment.

The Association grieved the Employer's unilateral decision to cancel all compressed work week (CWW) arrangements across the Provincial Highways Management Division.

The Employer argued that operational requirements necessitated the change to ensure staff availability.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the Employer's blanket prohibition failed to consider the long-standing practice of CWWs, lacked evidence of specific operational difficulties, and failed to assess individual employee circumstances.

The Board concluded the Employer's assessment of operational requirements was arbitrary and unreasonable, violating the collective agreement.

The grievance was allowed.

In a discharge grievance, the parties agreed at the first hearing date that a production order was necessary.

The Grievance Settlement Board directed the Ministry to disclose and produce all arguably relevant documents in its possession.

The parties were also directed to discuss whether a subpoena was required for documents currently in the possession of the London Police Services.

The union requested disclosure of audio files, video footage, and a map of the Orangeville courthouse in relation to the grievor's termination.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the employer to produce the audio and video files subject to strict confidentiality conditions.

The Board also ordered the employer to produce the courthouse map to union counsel only, denying the request to provide copies to the union representative and the grievor due to security concerns, noting that they were already familiar with the layout.

The union grieved the discharge of an employee for alleged infractions while operating a tunnel car.

The employer sought to introduce evidence from two managers who viewed a video recording of the grievor's actions before the video was inadvertently overwritten due to a technical error.

The union brought a motion to exclude the managers' testimony, arguing it was hearsay and not the best evidence.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the motion, finding that the managers' testimony was admissible secondary evidence of what they observed on the video, not hearsay, and that its probative value outweighed any prejudicial effect.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the union's grievance regarding an employee's layoff due to an untimely referral to arbitration.

The union referred the grievance to arbitration approximately two and a half months late due to an administrative error while processing a related policy grievance.

Applying the Burkett factors under section 48(16) of the Labour Relations Act, the arbitrator granted an extension of time, finding that the delay was not the grievor's fault, the issue was akin to a termination, and there was no substantial prejudice to the employer.

The motion to dismiss was denied.

The Union requested an order for the production of the report and findings from the investigation of the grievor's sexual harassment complaint.

The Employer resisted the request on the basis that the grievor remained off work and the Workplace Discrimination and Harassment Prevention Policy provides that findings are not to be disclosed until a return to work, to avoid exacerbating illness.

The Vice-Chair directed the Employer to provide a copy of the report and findings to the Union.