OGSB 2018

During an arbitration hearing for discipline grievances, an issue arose regarding the recall of three Employer witnesses following the late production of documents.

The Employer requested that the Union decide immediately whether it wanted to recall the witnesses, while the Union preferred to wait until the Employer closed its case in chief.

The Arbitrator directed the Union to advise the Employer by a specific date whether it wanted the witnesses recalled, finding that delaying the decision was inconsistent with the purpose of the recall agreement and unduly restricted the Employer's right to organize its case.

The union filed grievances on behalf of employees required to be available after hours to respond to human-bear conflicts under the employer's Bear Wise Protocol.

The employees were compensated at the on-call rate but claimed entitlement to the higher stand-by rate, arguing the protocol's response times required them to be immediately available to return to the workplace.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievances, finding that the employer's requirement for employees to respond within 30 minutes and be ready to respond within two hours met the collective agreement's definition of on-call duty, not stand-by time.

The grievor was terminated after a lengthy medical absence and failure to provide updated medical information.

She failed to attend scheduled arbitration hearings, citing medical reasons.

The arbitrator previously ordered her to provide medical documentation explaining her absence.

When she failed to do so by the deadline, the employer sought to dismiss the grievance.

The arbitrator granted one further extension of time for the grievor to provide the required medical documentation, noting the termination context and the grievor's medical issues.

During a teleconference, the arbitrator determined that undertakings relating to the provision of particulars could not be completed by the next scheduled hearing date.

Over the Union's objection, the arbitrator adjourned the hearing date to ensure the particulars could be provided in a timely fashion.

In a grievance arbitration under the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act, the Arbitrator issued procedural directions.

The Union and the grievor were directed to provide full and complete particulars of the grievances to the Employer by October 12, 2018.

The Employer was directed to advise the Union of any preliminary objections by November 9, 2018, ahead of the scheduled continuation of the hearing on November 30, 2018.

The union grieved that the employee should have been converted to full-time status sooner under Article 31A15 of the collective agreement.

The union relied on an email from the grievor's supervisor indicating a conversion date.

The employer argued the grievor failed to reach the 18-month threshold due to absences not covered by attendance credits, which broke her service.

The arbitrator agreed with the employer, finding the email was conditional and could not supersede the collective agreement, and dismissed the grievance.

The Employer requested an adjournment of a scheduled hearing date because its counsel was inadvertently double-booked.

The Union opposed the request, arguing that the matter had already been delayed and that the Employer could assign a different lawyer.

The Arbitrator granted the adjournment, noting that the underlying grievance regarding temporary higher pay was not time-sensitive, the scheduling error was inadvertent, and the assigned counsel had already invested time in the file and settlement discussions.

The hearing was rescheduled with a delay of only six days.

The union filed a policy grievance challenging the employer's Health Information Program Guide, arguing its definition of health information was too narrow and violated PHIPA and FIPPA.

The union also objected to the employer retaining health information for 50 years and sharing it with local managers.

The arbitrator found that the employer was not providing health care, so the information collected fell under the employment exception in PHIPA.

The arbitrator upheld the employer's right to retain the information and share limited necessary details with managers, subject to clarifying the language around diagnosis disclosure and ensuring knowledgeable consent for retention.

The grievor filed a grievance alleging systemic discrimination and harassment that prevented his career advancement.

The Employer brought a preliminary motion to restrict the scope of evidence to incidents occurring within three years prior to the grievance (the 'three-year rule').

The Union argued for an extension to establish a pattern of discrimination.

The Arbitrator granted the Employer's motion, finding that the three-year period provided a fair balance and that no unique circumstances justified a departure from the rule.

The parties engaged in a Med/Arb process to resolve outstanding overtime grievances at the Vanier Centre for Women and Central East Correctional Centre.

Following hearings in late 2017, the Arbitrator issued a decision without reasons, as agreed by the parties, detailing the disposition of numerous individual grievances.

Several grievances were upheld with specific hours of overtime or double time awarded, while the remainder were dismissed.

The employer brought a motion to dismiss seven individual grievances alleging health and safety violations at the Maplehurst Correctional Complex on the basis that they failed to make out a prima facie case or constituted an improper expansion of the grievance.

The arbitrator denied the motion with respect to the Access Grievance, finding that the union pleaded sufficient facts to establish that the lack of access to standing orders created a safety risk.

The arbitrator granted the motion and dismissed the Staff Shortages Grievances, the Proximity Grievance, and the Training Grievance, finding that they relied on unsupported conclusions rather than facts, and in some cases, improperly expanded the scope of the original grievances.

During the hearing of discipline grievances, a dispute arose regarding the union's intention to enter certain documents during cross-examination.

The hearing was adjourned to allow the employer to address the issues.

The arbitrator issued a decision reminding both parties of previous directions regarding the timely production of documents upon which they intend to rely, emphasizing the need to avoid unnecessary delay.

The grievor, a courtroom clerk registrar, went on long-term income protection (LTIP) and subsequently moved to England to attend a two-year law program.

Her LTIP benefits were terminated due to her relocation.

The employer granted a short-term educational leave of absence but denied further extensions due to operational needs and staffing shortages.

The grievor then requested a medical leave of absence but failed to provide supporting medical documentation despite repeated requests and warnings.

After being absent without approved leave for over two weeks, the employer declared that she had abandoned her position under section 42 of the Public Service of Ontario Act.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievances, finding that the employer's denial of the leave requests was reasonable and that the statutory requisites for abandonment were met.

The matter was scheduled for a hearing on April 18, 2018, but the Employer advised it would bring a motion to consolidate the grievances of another employee, whose counsel was unavailable.

The arbitrator used the date for case management.

The arbitrator ordered the Employer to produce the CSOI Investigation Report to the Union and scheduled the motion to consolidate, along with any potential motion to stay proceedings pending a criminal trial, for June 26, 2018.

The Employer requested an order for the production of particulars and documents from the Union regarding the grievor's alleged disabilities (diabetes and hearing impairment), need for accommodation including an assistive animal, and alleged damage to hearing aids.

The Arbitrator granted the request, ordering the Union to provide the specified particulars by April 20, 2018, and the requested medical and training records as soon as possible.

In a grievance arbitration concerning discipline and alleged reprisal, the Union requested the production of videos and discipline letters relating to the incident.

The Employer contested the order due to confidentiality concerns.

The parties reached an agreement, and the Arbitrator ordered the production of the materials subject to strict confidentiality restrictions.

The Arbitrator also issued procedural directions for the management of the hearing, including the exchange of statements of facts and limitations on witness testimony, to ensure the matter proceeds expeditiously.

The grievor failed to attend the scheduled hearing on April 6, 2018, citing a medical condition.

The Arbitrator ordered the Union to provide medical documentation from the grievor's treating health care professional confirming the medical condition, the inability to attend, and the anticipated date of return.

The hearing was adjourned sine die pending receipt of the documentation, with the Employer reserving the right to request dismissal or argue against remedy if the documentation is not provided.

The Union filed a group grievance alleging the Employer violated the Collective Agreement and the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act by inadvertently posting employees' personal information on a public drive.

The arbitrator found the breach was inadvertent and the information was posted for a short period.

Relying on similar precedent, the arbitrator ordered the Employer to pay $2,000 to the Union for equal distribution among the affected grievors.

The Grievance Settlement Board determined that most issues arising from the grievances were resolved by the Minutes of Settlement signed by the parties.

The only remaining issues to be determined were the grievor's claim for 65 days' pay during the WSIB waiting period and the employer's counterclaim for double payment.

The Board set a schedule for the exchange of written particulars and documents regarding these remaining claims.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of an employee who was denied payment for a personal/emergency leave day.

The employee requested the leave on the Friday before a statutory holiday long weekend but refused to provide a reason for the request, citing privacy.

The employer had a long-standing practice requiring a doctor's note for absences adjacent to statutory holidays and requiring reasons for emergency leave requests.

The arbitrator found the employer's decision to deny the paid leave was reasonable given the employee's refusal to provide a reason and the timing of the request.

The grievance was dismissed.