OGSB 2017

The Employer brought a motion to dismiss the grievance after the grievor failed to attend a scheduled mediation and subsequently failed to fully comply with the conditions of an adjournment.

The arbitrator found that the grievor did not provide the required medical documentation from an addiction specialist confirming enrollment in a treatment plan on the earliest available date, nor did he provide the required status update.

Given the grievor's non-attendance and failure to comply with the strict conditions of the adjournment, the arbitrator ordered the grievance dismissed unless the grievor could demonstrate good and sufficient cause for his non-attendance by a specified deadline.

The union sought further production of documents from the employer regarding the 'computer wipeout' issue, specifically written instructions and contracts governing the computer refreshing procedure at Maplehurst and the Bailiff operations in 2016 and 2017.

The arbitrator directed the employer to produce the requested documents within 30 days, permitting redactions for sensitive or confidential information.

The union brought two grievances on behalf of the grievor under an expedited mediation-arbitration process.

The first grievance sought the removal of a comment from the grievor's 2015 performance review; it was dismissed because the comment did not affect the rating.

The second grievance challenged a five-day suspension for unsafe and inappropriate behaviour.

The arbitrator found the conduct dangerous and inappropriate but the penalty excessive, reducing the suspension to two days and ordering compensation for the remaining three days.

During an ongoing arbitration of discipline grievances, the Employer disclosed that the bailiff computers subject to an agreed audit had been 'refreshed', potentially permanently losing the data.

The Union submitted a list of questions regarding this 'computer wipeout'.

The Arbitrator directed the Employer to respond to the Union's questions in writing by a specified date.

In a claims review proceeding regarding a denial of long-term income protection benefits, the Association sought to introduce a 'Will Say' statement and viva voce testimony from the claimant, as well as two scientific articles.

The employer objected, arguing the collective agreement contemplated an expeditious and informal review based on the record before the Joint Benefits Committee.

The arbitrator held that the 'Will Say' statement would be admitted subject to conditions, including limiting it to the two-year claim period and allowing the employer to cross-examine the claimant.

However, the arbitrator denied the request for additional viva voce testimony and refused to admit the scientific articles, noting that doing so would undermine the expedition and informality required by the collective agreement.

The parties appeared before the Grievance Settlement Board regarding multiple grievances.

Based on materials and statements, including the grievor's assertion that he could fulfill the duties of a Court Clerk and Registrar during pre-trial proceedings without accommodation other than periodic standing and stretching, the Arbitrator ordered a six-month trial period for pre-trial assignments by consent.

The balance of the grievances were dismissed on consent, with a letter of reprimand replaced by a letter of counsel.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to limit the scope of evidence the union could introduce regarding a poisoned workplace grievance.

The employer argued for the application of the Board's 'three-year rule' to exclude evidence of events dating back to 2008.

The union argued that the historical evidence provided necessary context.

The Arbitrator granted the employer's motion, finding that a four-year gap between the historical allegations and more recent events rendered the older evidence of tenuous relevance and would cause undue prejudice to the employer.

Evidence was limited to the three-year period predating the first grievance.

In a grievance alleging a failure to accommodate, the Employer requested disclosure of all arguably relevant documents and medical records from the Union and the grievor.

The Union did not oppose the request but expressed concern about meeting the proposed deadlines.

The Arbitrator ordered the requested disclosure, directing the Union to make best efforts to meet the dates.

The union referred a grievance to arbitration regarding compensation for missed meal breaks, which was resolved by minutes of settlement.

The settlement required the employer to advise correctional officers to note missed breaks on their regular sign-in and out sheets.

The employer subsequently issued a memo directing officers to use a separate sign-in sheet in the Minimum Duty Sergeant's office.

The union argued this violated the settlement.

The arbitrator agreed, finding the settlement clearly required missed breaks to be recorded on the regular shift sign-in and out sheets.

The grievor failed to attend the scheduled arbitration hearing despite receiving proper notice and being warned of the consequences by union counsel.

The union presented no evidence on the remaining issues of accommodation, harassment, and discrimination.

The employer requested that the grievances be dismissed and the grievor's actions be declared an abuse of process.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievances due to the lack of evidence but declined to decide whether the grievor's actions constituted an abuse of process.

The union grieved a letter of reprimand issued to the grievor for failing to attend work on three scheduled shifts.

The arbitrator found that the grievor's absence on one of the dates was due to a misunderstanding regarding approval, and ordered the reprimand amended to delete reference to that date.

However, the arbitrator upheld the reprimand for the other two dates, as the employer established that the grievor's vacation request had been denied and the grievor could not produce documentation showing compensating leave had been approved.

The grievance was upheld in part.

In an ongoing arbitration, the Union produced redacted notes, claiming privilege over the redacted portions.

The Employer sought production of the unredacted notes to challenge the privilege claim.

As a first step, the Arbitrator directed the Union to produce the unredacted notes to Employer counsel only, to allow counsel to review the redacted parts and determine whether a dispute over privilege was necessary.

The union requested that the grievor's name be anonymized in any decisions issued by the Grievance Settlement Board, arguing that the case involved sensitive medical information regarding the grievor's back and neck pain.

The employer opposed the request, relying on the open court principle.

The arbitrator held that the Grievance Settlement Board is a public statutory tribunal subject to the open court principle, creating a presumption of publication.

The arbitrator concluded that the union failed to establish exceptional or compelling circumstances to justify anonymization, as the medical issues were not highly sensitive and concerns about potential impacts on outside employment were insufficient.

The motion for anonymization was denied.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of the local union president regarding presidential leave.

The grievor submitted a request for leave for the last four hours of a shift, which was approved, but due to a clerical error, he was not informed of the approval.

Although told on the day that he could take the time off, he was uncomfortable doing so and subsequently requested eight hours of overtime as a remedy.

The arbitrator found that overtime was not an appropriate remedy but directed the employer to return a copy of the approved leave form to the grievor in the future to prevent similar issues.

The Employer brought a motion to adjourn scheduled hearing dates on the basis that the grievor had provided a medical certificate stating he was unable to work due to severe work-related stress.

The Employer argued that if the grievor could not attend work, he could not endure the stress of a hearing.

The Union provided a subsequent medical certificate confirming the grievor was capable of attending the hearings despite being unable to perform his official duties.

The Arbitrator dismissed the adjournment request, finding the updated medical certificate provided an adequate basis to conclude the grievor was medically fit to attend the hearings.

The union referred two grievances to arbitration.

The grievor elected not to attend the hearing because he objected to being represented by union counsel, despite being warned that his non-attendance could result in the grievances being dismissed.

The union sought an adjournment to allow the grievor to reconsider, while the employer requested that the grievances be dismissed.

The arbitrator held that the grievor did not have a compelling reason for absenting himself, as the union is the party to the arbitration and is entitled to select and instruct counsel.

The request for an adjournment was denied and the grievances were dismissed.

The union grieved that the employer violated health and safety provisions when correctional officers were exposed to smoke from fires set by inmates.

The employer brought a preliminary motion arguing that the Board lacked jurisdiction to award monetary redress or damages because the injuries were compensable under the Workers Safety and Insurance Act (WSIA).

The arbitrator upheld the employer's motion, finding that the WSIA's historic trade-off precludes awarding damages for compensable workplace injuries, even if the union frames the claim as a series of collective agreement breaches.

The grievor, a Correctional Officer, alleged that the Employer miscalculated her continuous service date (CSD).

She had previously resigned from a classified Records Clerk position to be rehired as a fixed-term Correctional Officer.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the break in service caused by her resignation disentitled her to having all of her past employment considered for the purposes of calculating her CSD.

The grievor, a fixed-term Correctional Officer rolled over into classified status, grieved that his continuous service date was incorrectly calculated and discriminatory due to hours missed for family status accommodation.

The Grievance Settlement Board found no evidence to substantiate the claim of discrimination.

However, the union demonstrated that the grievor did not receive appropriate credit for some weeks.

The grievance was upheld in part, and the grievor was credited with eight additional weeks for the purposes of his continuous service date.

The grievor, a Probation and Parole Officer, filed a grievance alleging that the Employer miscalculated her Continuous Service Date.

She had resigned from a permanent position with the Ministry of Government Services to remain in her current position as an unclassified employee.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that under Article 18.4 of the Collective Agreement, continuous service is deemed to have terminated if an employee resigns, which the grievor had elected to do.