OGSB 2017

The union filed a grievance alleging a violation of articles 2.1 and 3.3 of the Collective Agreement and the Workplace Harassment and Discrimination Prevention Policy.

The parties referred the grievance to mediation/arbitration under Article 22.16 of the collective agreement and requested a decision without precedent or prejudice, and without written reasons.

The arbitrator denied the grievance.

The union grieved the termination of the grievor's employment.

During the arbitration proceedings, the union sought the production of incoming call detail records from Bell Mobility for a specific telephone number.

On consent of both parties, the Grievance Settlement Board ordered Bell Mobility to disclose and release the requested records to the union's counsel.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued an interim decision regarding grievances filed by Ambulance Communication Officers at the Central Ambulance Communication Centre in Oshawa.

Noting that the issues had not yet crystallized, the Arbitrator ordered the parties to address and resolve matters relating to interim grievances, particulars, productions, and the identification of issues by January 19, 2018, after which a teleconference would be scheduled.

The Union filed 44 grievances alleging that a manager engaged in bullying, harassment, and discrimination, violating the collective agreement and health and safety legislation.

After the Union presented its evidence, the Employer brought a motion for non-suit.

The Arbitrator upheld the motion, finding that the Union failed to establish a prima facie case.

The evidence presented, even if assumed to be true, did not demonstrate a course of harassing conduct or any violation of the collective agreement, but rather instances of miscommunication or less than ideal management practices.

The parties sought clarification on the implementation of a prior award regarding inmate escorts.

The union argued that when only one Correctional Officer (CO) is available for an escort, the employer must assign that CO alongside a police officer.

The arbitrator held that the employer is not required to form a mixed crew of COs and police officers when there are insufficient COs available, as the employer retains discretion to make alternate arrangements in such circumstances.

The Union filed grievances regarding the calculation of compensating time for Correctional Officers who miss meal breaks while on hospital escort duty.

The Union argued that under the Memorandum of Settlement, officers on a twelve-hour shift missing two meal breaks should receive two hours of compensating time.

The Arbitrator found the language of the Memorandum unambiguous, stating that officers are entitled to one hour of compensating leave 'for the shift' regardless of its length or the number of missed breaks.

The grievances were denied.

The grievor, a correctional officer, was physically assaulted and racially slurred by a co-worker at an off-duty gathering.

He reported the incident to the employer, but the employer delayed investigating or taking steps to isolate the assailant from the grievor for nearly two months.

The union grieved the employer's failure to provide a harassment-free work environment.

The arbitrator found that the employer's delay perpetuated a poisoned work environment.

However, relying on recent jurisprudence, the arbitrator held that the Grievance Settlement Board lacked jurisdiction to award financial damages for mental stress, as such claims fall under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act.

The arbitrator issued a declaration against the employer and ordered temporary workplace safeguards to minimize contact between the grievor and the assailant.

The Union sought production of documents in a grievance alleging that a male correctional officer was harassed and assaulted by a female co-worker and her husband.

The Union requested documents relating to complaints about other incidents not involving the grievor or the co-workers to show differential treatment based on gender, as well as documents relating to other complaints against the specific co-workers.

The Arbitrator denied the first request, finding the documents were not arguably relevant and would unduly extend the proceedings.

The Arbitrator granted the second request, finding the documents were arguably relevant to the Employer's knowledge and obligation to provide a harassment-free workplace.

The grievor filed a grievance alleging the employer provided erroneous information to independent medical evaluation specialists, based on draft letters she discovered in her occupational health file.

The employer argued the grievance was barred by a prior Memorandum of Settlement that fully and finally settled all claims related to her return to work and accommodation process up to November 30, 2012.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that the draft letters related to the matters settled in the Memorandum of Settlement and could not be raised as a separate and distinct event.

The grievor, a Client Representative, went off work following a car accident and claimed long-term income protection (LTIP) benefits for the 'own occupation' period.

The insurance carrier denied the claim on the basis that she was not totally disabled, citing a lack of objective evidence of cognitive impairment.

The arbitrator found that the grievor's job required significant cognitive demands and that her diminished cognitive efficiency, as confirmed by an independent medical examination, prevented her from performing her essential duties efficiently and accurately.

The arbitrator held that the absence of objective evidence was not a valid reason to deny the claim, given the credible self-reporting of symptoms.

The grievance was allowed, and the grievor was found to be totally disabled during the relevant period.

The Employer moved to strike particulars from a grievance alleging a failure to accommodate the grievor's back issues.

The disputed particulars related to a period when the grievor took a leave of absence to work for the Patient Ombudsman, a separate employer.

The Grievance Settlement Board granted the motion, finding it lacked jurisdiction to consider allegations of failure to accommodate while the grievor was employed by a different employer, as the Employer's duty to accommodate did not continue during that period.

The parties appeared before the Grievance Settlement Board to address four outstanding union grievances.

Two of the grievances were resolved pursuant to Minutes of Settlement.

Having regard to the submissions of the parties, the arbitrator dismissed the remaining two grievances.

The Association sought an order requiring the Employer to prove the authenticity and completeness of an email record through independent third-party evidence, relying on section 34.1 of the Evidence Act.

The Arbitrator dismissed the request, finding that the Employer had provided sufficient evidence capable of supporting a finding of authenticity under section 34.1(4).

The Arbitrator also held that the best evidence rule did not apply in these circumstances, as the precise contents of the emails were not in issue, but rather the events they described.

Even if the rule applied, the Arbitrator would have exercised discretion under the Labour Relations Act to admit the secondary documents.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued a procedural order in a competition grievance.

The employer was ordered to produce unredacted documents relating to specific candidates, scoring criteria, and performance ratings.

The union was ordered to provide full particulars of the alleged defects in the competition.

The union filed four grievances on behalf of an employee who was assaulted by an inmate.

Two grievances claimed damages for a period while the employee was on WSIB, which the arbitrator dismissed based on prior jurisprudence.

The other two grievances alleged the employer failed to comply with workplace violence policies.

The arbitrator upheld these in part, directing the employer to comply with the policies and determine whether to transfer or internally relocate an offender when a threat or assault is confirmed.

The grievor, a Correctional Officer, worked his regular shift and went home.

He had previously signed up for overtime availability.

Due to a snowstorm, he was called and offered a part-shift, which he accepted.

He was paid overtime rates.

He grieved, arguing he should have received a four-hour minimum call back pay, noting another officer who had not signed up for overtime received call back pay.

The Arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding the grievor was offered and accepted overtime in accordance with the Provincial Overtime Protocol, whereas the other officer had not indicated availability and was thus in a different position.

The grievor's long-term income protection (LTIP) benefits were terminated by the insurer for alleged non-compliance with a mandatory rehabilitation program.

The union appealed the termination to the Grievance Settlement Board's Claims Review Subcommittee.

The arbitrator found that the insurer's recommended rehabilitation plan, which required a gradual return to work after only four sessions of cognitive behavioural therapy, was arbitrary and contradicted the independent medical examination's recommendations.

Because the rehabilitation plan was arbitrary, the grievor's failure to comply did not justify the termination of benefits.

The appeal was allowed.

The parties engaged in a Med/Arb process to resolve outstanding overtime grievances filed by Correctional Officers at various institutions.

Following several hearing dates, the Arbitrator issued a bottom-line decision without reasons, as agreed by the parties.

A number of grievances were upheld with specific overtime hours awarded, while the remainder were dismissed.

The grievor sought to have her previous service as a cook recognized for her Continuous Service Date (CSD) after she resigned from that position to become a Correctional Officer.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that under the collective agreement, continuous service is deemed to have terminated when an employee resigns.

Because the grievor resigned her position as a cook to take the new role, there was a break in service, precluding the recognition of her prior service for her CSD.

The Union alleged that the Employer breached a Memorandum of Settlement (MOS) regarding the grievor's use of the Short Term Sickness Plan (STSP) for a reduced work week accommodation.

The MOS stipulated that the use of STSP for this accommodation would cease.

Prior to the cut-off date, the grievor submitted a medical note recommending she remain off work for five days a week if the two-day STSP accommodation was unavailable, despite noting that occupational tasks were beneficial.

The Arbitrator found that the Employer did not breach the MOS by refusing to expand the STSP benefits to five days per week, as the MOS intended to halt the use of STSP for this purpose and the medical evidence did not support total disability.