OGSB 2018

The union sought production of various documents, including the grievor's personnel file, log books, policies, and discipline records of other staff members.

On mutual consent of the parties, the arbitrator ordered the employer to produce the requested documents by a specified date.

The union filed a grievance alleging that the grievor was improperly laid off or terminated from the position of Maintenance Mechanic and not recalled in accordance with the collective agreement.

The matter proceeded to expedited mediation/arbitration under the collective agreement.

The arbitrator considered the parties' submissions on the undisputed facts and the collective agreement language.

The grievance was denied without precedent or prejudice, in accordance with the parties' policy for expedited hearings.

The union filed a grievance alleging that the grievor was bypassed for an overtime opportunity prior to his scheduled shift.

The arbitrator found that the employer's records established a telephone call was placed to the grievor regarding the overtime opportunity, but no response was recorded.

As the grievor was canvassed, there was no violation of the collective agreement.

The grievance was dismissed.

The Union grieved that the Employer breached Minutes of Settlement by failing to pay the grievor for 15 vacation days.

The Employer had paid the grievor for 5.8 days, arguing that this was the actual amount in her vacation bank and that the agreement only required paying out her accrued vacation up to 15 days.

The Arbitrator found that the clear and unequivocal language of the Minutes of Settlement evidenced an intention to pay the grievor a lump sum equivalent to 15 vacation days, regardless of her actual accrual.

The grievance was allowed and the Employer was ordered to pay the remaining 10.2 days.

During the cross-examination of a manager in a discipline grievance proceeding, the union requested the production of various documents, including occurrence reports, conversation notes, and phone records.

The employer opposed many of the requests, arguing they were late and overly broad.

The arbitrator directed the production of documents that were arguably relevant to the central issues in dispute, such as specific conversation notes and occurrence reports, but denied requests for phone records and logbooks that pertained to collateral issues.

The grievor, a correctional officer with a permanent disability, alleged that his scheduling manager repeatedly failed to respect his accommodation plan and violated his privacy by discussing his accommodation needs publicly.

The arbitrator found insufficient evidence to support the claims, noting that the alleged scheduling errors did not demonstrate intentional disregard for the accommodation plan, and the conversation regarding the grievor's schedule did not improperly disclose the nature of his disability or specific accommodation details.

The grievance was dismissed.

The grievor, a Rehabilitation Officer, attended a Correctional Services Recognition Ceremony on her regular day off and sought compensation for her attendance.

The Employer paid her mileage but refused to pay her for the day.

The Arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that the grievor's attendance was not mandated or ordered by the Employer, and therefore she was not 'at work' or working on behalf of the Employer.

The parties proceeded by expedited mediation/arbitration regarding a grievance.

The employer conceded a violation of the collective agreement, leaving only the issue of remedy.

The arbitrator ordered the employer to pay $350 in damages to each grievor who had an asterisk beside their name and was being medically accommodated.

The employer sought to bring a preliminary motion arguing that the Grievance Settlement Board lacked jurisdiction to award human rights damages for a psychological injury compensable under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act.

The union objected to hearing this as a preliminary matter.

The Arbitrator allowed the union's objection, finding that bifurcating the hearing would not be efficient, as the jurisdictional issue was complex, intertwined with the merits, and might become moot if the grievance failed.

The matter was ordered to proceed on the merits.

In a grievance concerning a request for disability accommodation, the Arbitrator issued an interim decision directing the Union to provide full written particulars of the grievor's asserted disability.

The Union was also directed to produce all relevant documentation, including medical records detailing any restrictions or limitations on the grievor's ability to return to work.

The Employer was directed to respond in writing setting out its position prior to the continuation of the hearing.

The grievor, a caseworker, requested three days of paid Special and Compassionate Leave (SCL) under the collective agreement to deal with personal issues related to the anniversary of her brother-in-law's death.

The employer requested additional information to support the request, which the grievor refused to provide.

The employer denied the SCL request but offered vacation days instead.

The grievor later provided a doctor's note stating she needed time off to support her spouse's medical treatment, but again refused to explain the connection to her original request.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that the employer's decision-making process was reasonable and not arbitrary, as the onus is on the employee to provide sufficient factual support for an SCL request.

During a grievance arbitration involving multiple consolidated grievances, the employer requested an order confirming the Board's jurisdiction over human rights issues and directing that all grievances be heard concurrently.

The union opposed the jurisdiction order as unnecessary and argued for consecutive hearings to avoid delaying the original grievances.

The Grievance Settlement Board declined to issue the jurisdiction order, finding no active dispute on the matter.

However, the Board ordered that all grievances be heard concurrently due to significant evidentiary overlap.

The Board also permitted union counsel to discuss the grievor's will-say statement with her to prepare for the newly consolidated grievances.

The union filed grievances on behalf of Customer Care Specialists claiming the employer violated the collective agreement by denying shift premiums for hours worked between 5:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.

The employer had implemented a new policy requiring 50% of an employee's scheduled shifts in a month to end after 5:00 p.m. to be eligible for the premium.

The arbitrator found the employer's new threshold inconsistent with the collective agreement, which clearly provided shift premiums for all hours worked between 5:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.

The grievances were granted, and the employer was ordered to pay the grievors the premium pay with interest.

The grievor, a Correctional Officer, filed two grievances.

The first challenged a seven-day suspension for using profanity and intentionally intimidating an inmate.

The arbitrator found the discipline too severe and reduced it to a five-day suspension with two days' compensation.

The second grievance alleged the Employer violated the Collective Agreement by denying the grievor an Expression of Interest developmental line.

The arbitrator found the Employer failed to comply with the posting provisions and issued a declaration to that effect.

The decision was issued without reasons pursuant to an Expedited Mediation-Arbitration Protocol.

The Arbitrator issued a procedural direction following a teleconference.

The upcoming hearing date will be used to establish undisputed material facts and mark agreed documents as exhibits, after which the matter will be adjourned to dates yet to be set.

The grievor challenged the outcome of a job competition for a Case Processor position, alleging testing errors, bias by an interview panel member, and insufficient weight given to her past experience.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that the union failed to meet its onus of proving the allegations, as there was no evidence beyond the grievor's subjective belief.

The grievor, a Correctional Officer, was suspended for three days for using a personal electronic device in a secure area and allegedly showing it to an inmate.

The Union objected to the admission of video evidence, arguing lack of notice, but the arbitrator admitted it.

The arbitrator found the video did not clearly show the grievor allowing an inmate to look at the phone.

The suspension was reduced to two days, and the grievor was compensated for one day of lost wages.

The Union advised the Grievance Settlement Board that the Employer had not complied with quantifiable orders made in a previous decision.

The Arbitrator directed the Employer to pay the Grievor all monies due pursuant to the previous orders within two weeks.

The grievor failed to attend the scheduled expedited arbitration hearing dates after a previous adjournment was granted to allow him to bring necessary documents.

The employer brought a motion seeking an order to compel his attendance.

The arbitrator ordered the grievor to attend the next scheduled hearing dates, failing which his grievance may be dismissed.

The union filed a grievance alleging the employer failed to take every reasonable precaution for the safety of correctional officers during a brief transfer of power from a sub control module.

The arbitrator found that while the sergeant took several steps to ensure safety, he failed to obtain confirmation that all inmates were secure in their cells before directing the power transfer.

The arbitrator issued a declaration that the employer failed to satisfy its obligations under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, but declined to order further remedial relief as the failure was an inadvertent oversight.