OGSB 2017

The Association filed a grievance alleging the employer breached the collective agreement by failing to protect the complainant from personal harassment and reprisal, resulting in mental stress and illness.

The employer brought a preliminary motion arguing the Grievance Settlement Board lacked jurisdiction to award damages because the injury was compensable under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act (WSIA).

Although the WSIA at the time barred claims for chronic mental stress, the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal had previously found those provisions unconstitutional and declined to apply them.

The Arbitrator held that the injury would have been compensable under the WSIA in light of the Tribunal's decisions, and therefore the Board lacked jurisdiction to award the requested damages.

In a grievance arbitration concerning an allegation of unjust termination, the Employer requested particulars from the Union.

The Union resisted, arguing the Employer should provide particulars first.

The Arbitrator ordered both parties to exchange particulars and will-say statements on a set schedule prior to the hearing dates.

The grievor, a court clerk, filed a grievance seeking compensation for unpaid mileage and travel time dating back to 2013 when he was transferred to the Toronto region.

The arbitrator found that the employer's failure to pay constituted a continuing breach of the collective agreement.

However, under the collective agreement's 30-day time limit for filing grievances, the grievor was only entitled to compensation for the 30 days prior to the grievance filing date.

The employer was ordered to pay $177.24 for travel time and $100.88 for mileage.

The union filed a grievance alleging that the grievor was improperly denied a roll-over from fixed term to classified status at the Toronto South Detention Centre.

The Expression of Interest required applicants to have been employed and continue to be employed at TSDC for one year prior to the agreement.

At the time of the application, the grievor was a fixed term employee with another ministry.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that the grievor was not employed as a Correctional Officer at TSDC at the time of the rollover exercise.

The grievor, a fixed-term Correctional Officer, filed a grievance alleging the Employer violated the Collective Agreement by failing to roll her over into a classified position.

The grievor missed the deadline to submit an expression of interest, claiming her email failed to send and she accidentally deleted it.

The Employer refused to make an exception, citing the need for fairness and transparency.

The Arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding no violation of the Collective Agreement or the MERC agreement.

The grievor, a Correctional Officer, was reinstated pursuant to a Memorandum of Agreement which specified his place of employment as the Thunder Bay Correctional Complex.

He subsequently applied for a lateral transfer to the Thunder Bay Jail, which was denied.

The union grieved the denial.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that the Memorandum of Agreement specifically restricted the grievor's place of employment to the Thunder Bay Correctional Complex and contained no time limit on this restriction.

The grievor applied for a Product Consultant position but was screened out at the resume stage because the Employer determined his resume did not demonstrate the minimum requirements.

The Union grieved, arguing the grievor was qualified, as evidenced by him winning the same position six months later with a similarly substantive resume.

The Arbitrator found that while the resume was poorly formatted, it did establish the minimum qualifications required by the job posting.

The Employer breached the collective agreement by not advancing the grievor in the competition.

The grievance was allowed and the grievor was ordered to be made whole.

The grievor, a fixed-term employee with no sick leave entitlements, missed three days of work due to a hip injury and requested paid Special and Compassionate Leave under the collective agreement.

The employer requested documentation to substantiate the grievor's claim that the unpaid absence would cause financial hardship.

The grievor obtained a bank statement but refused to provide it to the employer, citing privacy concerns.

The employer subsequently denied the leave request.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that the employer was entitled to request information supporting the leave and that its decision to deny the request based on the information provided was not unreasonable.

During a hearing for discipline grievances, the Union produced an audio recording of a fact-finding meeting after the Employer's witness had completed her examination-in-chief but before cross-examination.

The Employer requested to reopen the examination-in-chief and prepare the witness using the recording.

On consent of the Union, the Arbitrator directed that Employer counsel could play the recording for the witness and prepare her for the continuation of her examination-in-chief, consistent with the Law Society's Rules of Professional Conduct regarding communication with witnesses.

In a grievance arbitration concerning the termination of the grievor's employment, the union sought production of cell phone records from a third-party telecommunications provider.

The arbitrator ordered Fido to produce a full account of incoming and outgoing calls between two specified phone numbers for a defined period.

The records were ordered to be released to employer counsel, who would then provide them to union counsel without redaction, subject to privacy protections for personal information.

The Association brought a motion to bifurcate the arbitration proceeding to first determine whether the employer's cancellation of a job competition was a bad faith exercise of management rights.

The employer opposed the motion, arguing it would result in duplication of evidence and delay.

The Arbitrator granted the motion, finding that determining the cancellation issue first could dispose of the entire grievance and avoid the need for lengthy testimony regarding the individual complainants' qualifications.

The Arbitrator noted that evidence from the first phase could be applied to the second phase to minimize duplication.

Nine Correctional Officers filed grievances alleging the Employer violated the Collective Agreement by denying requests for particular days off utilizing compensating time off earned from working Paid Holidays.

The Employer argued the denials were based on operational requirements to maintain necessary staffing levels.

The Arbitrator found no restriction to the right to time off in the Collective Agreement and declared that the Employer had violated the agreement, upholding the grievances.

The Union alleged that the Employer breached a Memorandum of Settlement by delaying the creation of a lieu bank for affected employees until August 2017.

The arbitrator issued directions allowing employees to apply lieu days to unpaid leave taken since the settlement date and permitting extensions for those unable to use their days by the deadline due to exceptional circumstances.

The arbitrator also clarified that employees on temporary assignment or secondment to another Ministry as of the settlement date are entitled to the lieu days if they return to the Ministry by December 31, 2018.

The parties agreed to a process for the production of certain documents.

The Arbitrator issued a confidentiality order directing that any documents produced be disclosed only to the parties and used solely for the purposes of the instant proceedings.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of an employee alleging that the employer unfairly and inconsistently charged for overtime hours, resulting in the employee not receiving an equalization payment.

The employer argued that the employee did not challenge the accuracy of the overtime charges within the 10-day period required by the Memorandum of Agreement.

The arbitrator found that the employee failed to dispute the records within the required timeframe, meaning the employer's records were deemed accurate.

The grievance was dismissed.

The Union requested an adjournment of a mediation scheduled for August 4, 2017.

The Employer agreed to the adjournment only with conditions.

The Arbitrator granted the adjournment on the condition that the Association provide medical documentation confirming the Complainant is following an addiction treatment plan, along with updates and a written undertaking from the Complainant to attend and participate in the proceedings.

The grievor was terminated from her fixed-term contract as a Correctional Officer for exceeding the ten permitted absences outlined in a prior Memorandum of Settlement.

The union grieved the termination, arguing that ten of her fourteen absences were protected personal emergency leave days under section 50 of the Employment Standards Act, 2000, primarily related to caring for her son's severe migraines.

The arbitrator held that the parties could not contract out of the minimum standards of the Employment Standards Act.

Because ten of the absences were statutorily protected, they could not be counted toward the threshold for termination under the settlement.

The grievance was allowed and the grievor was reinstated to complete her contract.

In a grievance arbitration concerning a 20-day suspension and subsequent termination, the arbitrator ruled on outstanding document production requests from both the union and the employer.

The employer was ordered to produce cell phone records, daily time sheets, and a photograph, while the union was ordered to produce an unredacted letter, original screen shots, notes, and original audio files.

Both parties were directed to comply by September 6, 2017.

The Association filed a job competition grievance on behalf of the complainant, a Financial Analyst, alleging that the employer violated the collective agreement by awarding a permanent position to a non-bargaining unit applicant.

The collective agreement required preference to be given to the bargaining unit applicant where qualifications and ability were relatively equal.

The arbitrator found that while both candidates had excellent technical skills, the successful applicant possessed significantly better interpersonal, communication, and strategic skills, which were essential requirements of the position.

The grievance was dismissed.

The Union requested interim orders imposing terms and conditions on the grievor's return to work following the Employer's decision to rescind his termination and reinstate him to the Bailiff Department.

The Union alleged a poisoned work environment and sought protections against further harassment and discrimination.

The Arbitrator dismissed the request, finding it inappropriate to assume the truth of the contested allegations at this stage of the proceeding and concluding that any concerns could be adequately addressed at the end of the proceeding or through new grievances.