OGSB 2017

A group of fixed term correctional officers filed a grievance alleging the employer breached the collective agreement by failing to pay premium pay for work scheduled on days off before their scheduled forty hours.

The parties referred the grievance to mediation/arbitration and requested a decision without precedent or prejudice, and without written reasons.

The Grievance Settlement Board denied the grievance.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued a mutual document production order in a grievance alleging workplace harassment and discrimination.

The Employer and the Union were ordered to produce various documents, including medical records, investigation reports, and correspondence, subject to claims of privilege and confidentiality agreements.

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

The Vice-Chair issued a decision detailing the disposition of numerous grievances, with some being upheld and others dismissed.

Any monies owing to individual grievors were ordered to be paid at the appropriate overtime rate less statutory deductions.

The union alleged that the employer breached the original Minutes of Settlement regarding a phased retirement arrangement by changing the grievor's Post-Retirement Benefits (PRB).

The employer argued that the issue was resolved by a subsequent corporate Memorandum of Settlement that addressed all outstanding matters related to PRB changes.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the corporate settlement's broad release and entire agreement clauses covered the grievor's situation, as the original settlement was silent on PRB.

The union's request for production of documents to support an allegation of bad faith was dismissed as a fishing expedition.

The employer brought preliminary motions to dismiss twelve of eighteen grievances filed by the union on behalf of the grievor, alleging harassment, bullying, and discrimination.

The employer argued that the grievances failed to establish a prima facie case.

The Vice-Chair reviewed the grievances and particulars, finding that six of the grievances lacked sufficient objective facts to support the allegations or were moot, and dismissed them without a hearing.

The remaining six grievances, which overlapped with disciplinary matters, were allowed to proceed to a hearing on the merits.

Following a prior decision reinstating the grievor, a correctional officer discharged for using excessive force, the union challenged the employer's decision to assign him to a receptionist position.

The arbitrator held that the receptionist position was not substantially equivalent to a correctional officer position due to differences in duties, skill, responsibility, and pay structure.

The arbitrator further held that he lacked the statutory authority under section 7(4) of the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act to direct the grievor's assignment to a Control position, as that role involves direct responsibility for inmates.

The issue of whether a Front Door post was substantially equivalent was remitted to the parties.

The union filed a grievance regarding an incident where a boot was moved to a garbage area and a video of the event was subsequently disclosed to a bargaining unit member.

The matter proceeded through an expedited mediation-arbitration process.

The arbitrator found no violation of the collective agreement, although noting the employer was ill-advised to release the video.

The grievance was denied.

The union filed grievances on behalf of two employees alleging the employer violated the collective agreement by failing to adhere to its own policies and procedures following an incident involving an inmate threat.

The matter proceeded through an expedited mediation-arbitration process.

The arbitrator upheld the grievance, ordering the employer to comply with the Institutional Policy and Procedures Manual pertaining to threats against employees, determine appropriate offender relocation when threats are confirmed, and ensure threatened employees are kept informed of proceedings.

The parties disputed the calculation of remedial compensation following a previous decision that reinstated the grievor.

The employer required the grievor to return to work on short notice, and when she was unavailable for three days due to prior commitments, the employer did not pay her for those days.

The union argued this violated the reinstatement order.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the employer's timeline was generally reasonable, but the grievor was reasonably unavailable for one of the three days due to a pre-existing appointment.

The Board ordered the employer to pay the grievor for one day of lost wages.