OGSB 2018

The union requested the production of unredacted documents relating to a workplace assessment conducted by James Docherty and Associates.

The employer agreed to produce the documents.

The arbitrator issued a direction ordering the production of the requested documents, subject to strict confidentiality conditions limiting their use to the current proceeding.

In a grievance arbitration, the union sought production of various documents relating to the grievor's accommodation and discipline.

The parties resolved several production requests but disputed three.

Applying the West Park Hospital factors, the Arbitrator ordered the employer to produce documents relating to two individuals whose involvement was arguably relevant.

However, the Arbitrator denied the request for documents from a third individual, finding that the burden of searching archived records was disproportionate to her limited involvement of merely being blind-copied on an email.

In a grievance arbitration involving seventeen grievances filed by the Union, the Employer requested full particulars and documents prior to the hearing.

The parties agreed on a timetable for the exchange of information.

The Arbitrator issued an interim decision directing the Union to provide particulars and documents by August 31, 2018, and the Employer to respond by November 30, 2018.

The Arbitrator declined the Employer's request to preemptively dismiss the grievances if the Union missed the deadline, noting it was premature, but warned that failure to comply could lead to dismissal.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of a warehouse worker claiming entitlement to overtime pay for two dates.

The employer had canvassed employees for overtime opportunities on the preceding days, but the grievor was bypassed because he was absent from work due to illness.

The arbitrator found that the Memorandum of Agreement regarding overtime equalization explicitly allowed for hours to be charged to employees absent for any reason, and it was the employer's practice not to canvass sick employees for next-day overtime.

The grievance was dismissed.

The grievor, who had filed grievances alleging harassment and unjust dismissal, requested to attend the hearing via teleconference due to medical reasons, specifically anxiety and an inability to speak in front of people.

The employer opposed the request and brought a motion to disallow it, arguing that the nature of the issues required in-person attendance.

The arbitrator granted the grievor's request, finding that the medical documentation established a sufficient need for accommodation, though noting the decision might need to be revisited as the hearing progressed.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of a warehouse worker claiming entitlement to 4 hours of overtime pay for a missed overtime opportunity.

The arbitrator found that while the grievor was inadvertently bypassed, he was not charged for the opportunity.

Under the collective agreement's overtime equalization process, the grievor's accumulated overtime hours were within 15 hours of the employee with the greatest number of hours at the end of the reconciliation period.

Therefore, the overtime opportunities were deemed equalized and the grievor had no claim for monetary relief.

The grievance was dismissed.

In a grievance arbitration, the arbitrator ordered the grievor to obtain her complete medical file from the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH) and produce it to union counsel.

Union counsel was directed to produce the arguably relevant portions to employer counsel.

The disclosure was made subject to strict confidentiality conditions, limiting dissemination to key advisors on a need-to-know basis, prohibiting advisors from making copies, and requiring the destruction of all but one copy of the documents at the conclusion of the proceedings.

The Arbitrator issued case management directions regarding grievances alleging discrimination and failure to accommodate.

The directions established timelines for initial production of documents, the filing of declarations in lieu of oral evidence in chief, and written representations.

The Arbitrator also set strict time limits for oral openings, cross-examinations, re-examinations, and final arguments at the hearing, and outlined the procedure for resolving preliminary issues prior to the hearing.

The employer brought a motion to dismiss a termination grievance after the grievor failed to attend two scheduled hearings and failed to provide medical documentation as ordered by the Board.

The union opposed the motion and ultimately sought to proceed with the grievance in the grievor's absence.

The arbitrator denied the employer's motion to dismiss, finding that the union has carriage of the grievance and is entitled to proceed without the grievor present, thereby allowing the matter to be heard on its merits without further delay.

The grievor, a correctional officer, was terminated for allegedly using excessive force by directing an inmate's head into a steel door frame and failing to properly document the incident.

The union grieved the termination and the forfeiture of unused vacation credits.

The arbitrator reviewed video evidence and expert testimony, concluding that the grievor intentionally pushed the compliant inmate into the door frame, constituting an excessive use of force.

The arbitrator also found the grievor failed to accurately report the incident.

Given the serious breach of trust and the grievor's lack of remorse, the termination was upheld.

The grievance regarding the forfeiture of vacation credits was also dismissed as the employer's actions complied with the collective agreement.

The grievor, a long-service Database Administrator, applied for a Transition Exit Initiative (TEI) under Appendix 46 of the collective agreement prior to retiring.

The Employer denied the application on the basis that there was an ongoing need for the grievor's position, despite the grievor's core duties diminishing due to technological changes.

The Union grieved the denial, arguing that the grievor's departure supported the transformation of the OPS.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the Employer reasonably exercised its broad discretion under Appendix 46 by limiting TEI approvals to circumstances where the departure would free up a position to be eliminated, consistent with the objective of workforce reduction.

The parties proceeded by expedited mediation/arbitration.

The Employer submitted that the parties had agreed to a negotiated settlement, while the Union presented the Grievor's concerns and sought a greater amount in damages.

The Arbitrator determined that the Union and the Employer had reached a binding settlement, which was accurately reflected in the written Minutes of Settlement prepared by the Employer.

The Arbitrator ruled that the Minutes of Settlement were in effect and determinative of all outstanding issues.

The grievor applied for an Assistant Business Administrator position but did not meet the benchmark score.

When the position was reposted with a broader geographic scope, the grievor applied again but was not granted an interview.

The union filed a grievance alleging inequitable hiring practices and sought disclosure of all competition documents.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that the employer was under no general obligation to disclose the requested documents and that the decision not to grant the grievor an interview in the expanded second competition was not unreasonable.

In a grievance arbitration concerning the scope of the Union's bargaining rights, the Employer sought to bring a summary judgment motion after Phase 1 of the evidence.

The Union objected, arguing the parties' procedural agreement precluded such a motion.

The arbitrator agreed with the Union, finding the agreement's provisions for a holistic approach and final argument on all issues precluded a summary judgment motion at this stage.

The Union also sought an order requiring the Employer to detail discrepancies between job descriptions and actual duties for 88 positions.

The arbitrator dismissed this request, holding it was inappropriate in an adversarial proceeding to compel the Employer to conduct extensive research to build the Union's case.

The grievor, a Correctional Officer, filed a grievance after her pay was reduced for taking leave when she allegedly had no available credits, resulting in NSF bank charges.

The union argued she had earned credits for statutory holidays that should have covered the leave.

The arbitrator, following an expedited mediation-arbitration process, allowed the grievance in part and directed the employer to compensate the grievor for NSF charges up to $181 upon provision of documentary proof.

The grievor, a former Correctional Officer, was reinstated to employment following a previous arbitration decision that substituted his discharge with a suspension.

The employer placed him in an Electronic Supervision Officer (ESO) position.

The union grieved, arguing the ESO position was not 'substantially equivalent' to his former role because it offered significantly less opportunity for overtime pay.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that the two positions were substantially equivalent in skill, responsibility, and base pay.

The arbitrator held that the quantum of overtime previously earned could not be considered in the equivalency assessment, as overtime is a management right and not an employee entitlement.

In a grievance arbitration concerning the discharge of a correctional officer for failing to identify an inmate fight and injured inmate, the Union brought a preliminary motion for the production of documents relating to three other incidents where staff allegedly missed inmate fights but were not disciplined.

The Employer argued the request lacked specificity and was a fishing expedition.

The Arbitrator granted the motion, finding the documents arguably relevant to the Union's claim of differential discipline, and ordered production with procedural safeguards to mitigate any prejudice to the Employer.

The Union requested that the grievor be permitted to attend the arbitration hearings via teleconference for medical reasons.

The Employer objected and brought a motion to compel her in-person attendance, citing credibility concerns in a harassment dispute.

The Arbitrator found the initial medical note insufficient and ordered the Union to provide specific questions to the grievor's physician regarding her medical restrictions and the expected duration of her inability to attend in person.

Failure to provide the requested information would result in the Employer's motion being granted.

The union filed a grievance alleging that the grievor was not appropriately scheduled hours of work according to his seniority and the collective agreement.

The matter proceeded via an expedited mediation-arbitration process.

The arbitrator found no violation of the collective agreement and dismissed the grievance.

The parties requested rulings on two preliminary issues in a series of grievances.

The employer objected to parts of the union's particulars for three 2017 grievances, arguing they violated grievance procedure privilege, constituted an abuse of process, and improperly relied on similar fact evidence.

The arbitrator upheld the objection based on grievance procedure privilege, striking several paragraphs.

The abuse of process objection was dismissed, as there was no prejudice to the employer.

The objection regarding similar fact evidence was upheld, and the paragraph was struck due to a lack of particulars and the risk of expanding the hearing's scope.

The union's request for further unspecified document production was denied as an impermissible fishing expedition.