OGSB 2017

In a job posting grievance where the grievor was screened out, the parties were unable to resolve the matter through mediation.

As the exchange of particulars and production had not been completed, the Vice-Chair issued procedural directions ordering the Employer and the Union to exchange full particulars and produce relevant documents prior to the hearing.

The hearing was scheduled to be completed in one day with strict time limits for each party's presentation.

The union filed a grievance regarding the employer's failure to comply with Minutes of Settlement signed in October 2014.

The employer conceded that it breached the settlement by failing to provide the agreed-upon training in human rights, equity, diversity, workplace violence, harassment, and bullying within the twelve-month timeline.

The Grievance Settlement Board noted the employer's commitment to training and remained seized of any interpretation issues.

During a conference call regarding outstanding production issues in a series of discipline and termination grievances, the Vice-Chair canvassed the parties on scheduling additional hearing dates and engaging in further settlement discussions.

After speaking with counsel separately, the Vice-Chair determined that sufficient movement had occurred to warrant further mediation.

The Vice-Chair directed that previously scheduled hearing dates be converted to mediation days and scheduled additional hearing dates for 2018.

The parties disputed whether a Memorandum of Settlement signed on November 28, 2014, resolved seven grievances filed by the grievor in 2013 regarding statutory holiday pay.

The Employer argued that the settlement's language withdrawing 'any and all grievances up to today's date' included the 2013 grievances.

The Union argued that the settlement was intended only to cover grievances filed between March 2010 and November 2012, as specified in other clauses.

The Vice-Chair found that, reading the agreement as a whole and in context, the parties intended to resolve only the grievances from 2010 to 2012.

The 2013 grievances were not resolved by the settlement and remain to be scheduled.

The union filed grievances alleging that the employer's decision to temporarily close a specific unit at the Ontario Correctional Institute and disperse its staff and residents on two occasions constituted discrimination under the Human Rights Code, discrimination based on union activity, and bullying and harassment.

The grievors argued that the unit had a high concentration of union activists and racialized staff, and that the closures were illogical compared to other options.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievances, finding the evidence entirely circumstantial and insufficient to establish that the employer's actions breached the collective agreement.

The Association requested that the Employer produce certain documents and confirm full compliance with its production requests.

The Employer had not confirmed full compliance.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the Employer to either confirm it had produced all requested documents or file a list of documents it objects to producing, along with reasons, by May 29, 2017.

The union filed grievances alleging the employer violated the collective agreement by manually scheduling nurses at a correctional institute instead of using a computerized system.

The collective agreement incorporated a provincial overtime protocol requiring a computerized overtime tracking system and daily distribution reports.

The arbitrator found the manual system did not meet these requirements and ordered the employer to implement a compliant computerized system within 20 days.

Requests for damages were denied due to a lack of evidence of lost opportunities.

The employer brought a motion to dismiss a grievance for failing to disclose a prima facie case.

The grievance alleged that a manager's harsh tone and aggressive manner constituted harassment, discrimination, and a reprisal for trade union activity.

The Vice-Chair found that while the grievance standing alone would fail to disclose a violation, it could proceed because the union intended to establish a pattern of repeated impropriety by the employer across multiple grievances.

The motion to dismiss was denied.

The union renewed its request for the production of documents held by the Office of the Fire Marshall, which had previously been denied due to an ongoing OPP investigation.

On consent of the parties, including the OPP, the Grievance Settlement Board ordered the documents produced forthwith, subject to strict confidentiality conditions limiting access to counsel and one instructing client, and requiring any such documents marked as exhibits to be sealed.

The Union filed a grievance alleging that meetings held by the Employer with Correctional Officers on Unit 6 were investigatory and denied members their right to union representation.

The Employer maintained the meetings were to review expectations and discuss concerns.

The Vice-Chair, acting under the Expedited Mediation-Arbitration protocol, denied the grievance without providing reasons, noting the context of ongoing complaints and related grievances referred to regular arbitration.

The union filed a grievance regarding a job competition for a Financial Officer 2 position.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued a consent order terminating the proceedings on the agreed terms, which included the employer screening the grievor in and permitting her to write the pre-interview test for one eligible future competition.

The Association requested an order for the immediate production of financial and employment documentation relevant to a policy grievance concerning the monetary entitlement of certain employees excluded from the bargaining unit.

The employer agreed to produce the documents but only simultaneously with their presentation to the employees at a group meeting.

The Grievance Settlement Board granted the Association's request, ordering immediate production to ensure efficiency and adequate preparation time before the scheduled hearing.

The union filed grievances on behalf of correctional officers, alleging the employer failed to maintain the currency of their escort training, which resulted in lost overtime opportunities at another institution.

The matter proceeded via an expedited mediation-arbitration process.

The Vice-Chair denied the grievances without detailed reasons, in accordance with the negotiated protocol for expedited mediation-arbitration.

The grievor, a warehouse employee, filed a grievance alleging the employer acted in bad faith and was motivated by nepotism when it rejected his application for a maintenance service person training opportunity and instead selected the warehouse director's nephew.

The arbitrator found that the grievor failed to meet the required qualifications, including passing an aptitude test and providing a relevant training certificate.

The arbitrator concluded there was no evidence the warehouse director was involved in the selection process or that the maintenance manager's decision was motivated by nepotism or a desire to impede the grievor's career advancement.

The grievance was dismissed.

The grievor, a Correctional Officer, accepted a temporary assignment to a Rehabilitation Officer position.

She grieved that she should continue to be paid at the higher Correctional Officer rate and for the same hours, relying on a past practice where another officer received the higher rate during a trial period for the position.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the grievor was backfilling a permanent position with established hours and pay rates under the collective agreement, and was being paid correctly.

The union requested the consolidation of additional grievances filed by the grievor with the present grievances, and an order for the employer to produce documents relating to a WDHP complaint and the grievances.

The Grievance Settlement Board granted the requests, ordering consolidation subject to the union referring the unreferred grievances to arbitration, and ordering the production of the requested documents.

The Union filed a policy grievance alleging that the Employer's unilaterally implemented accommodation and return-to-work policies violated the collective agreement and the Human Rights Code by failing to mandate Union participation in all aspects of the accommodation process.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that the Union's right to participate is not absolute and does not extend to all accommodation meetings or the development of general policies.

Applying the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Renaud, the Board found that the Union is entitled to participate only when an employee specifically requests representation, when a proposed accommodation impacts collective agreement rights, or when the Union's cooperation is required to waive a discriminatory provision.

The employer brought a motion to dismiss four related grievances alleging bullying, harassment, health and safety violations, reprisal, and constructive dismissal.

The employer argued that the union's particulars and 'will say' statement did not make out a prima facie case for any violation of the collective agreement.

The Grievance Settlement Board applied the established principle that facts asserted in support of a grievance must be accepted as true for the purpose of such a motion.

The Board concluded that the facts asserted by the union were capable of supporting a violation of the collective agreement.

The employer's motion to dismiss was dismissed.

The Union brought a motion under Rule 3 of the Grievance Settlement Board's Rules of Procedure to have three grievances heard together by the same Vice-Chair.

The grievances all pertained to the I&IT Support Services department and involved the same supervisor.

The Employer opposed the motion.

The Vice-Chair granted the motion, finding that the grievances shared common questions of law or fact, and that hearing them together would create efficiencies, avoid inconsistent findings, and not prejudice the Employer.

The grievor filed a grievance claiming improper pay while on an acting assignment.

The parties participated in an expedited mediation-arbitration process.

The Vice-Chair found that the grievance was filed almost one and one half years after the events giving rise to it.

The grievance was dismissed as clearly out of time.