OGSB 2019

The Union sought preliminary orders regarding hearing accommodations, document production, and grievance consolidation.

The accommodation request, which sought specific security measures and separation from another individual due to medical reasons, was contested by the Employer and the other individual.

The Arbitrator found the medical documentation unclear and subject to legitimate challenge.

However, noting an existing peace bond against the other individual, the Arbitrator ordered alternative hearing procedures allowing the grievors to participate via video conference, rendering the accommodation request moot.

The Arbitrator also ordered the Employer to produce requested documents and confirmed the consent consolidation of certain grievances.

The union filed a grievance alleging that the employer breached the grievor's right to privacy and confidentiality by discussing his medical leave and absence from work with his spouse, who was also an employee at the same facility.

The matter proceeded via mediation-arbitration.

The arbitrator found that a member of management did meet with the grievor's spouse to inquire about his health, which constituted a breach of the grievor's privacy and confidentiality regarding medical leave.

The grievance was upheld, and the employer was ordered to pay $250 in damages to the grievor.

The union filed a grievance alleging that the employer violated the collective agreement by failing to fill three vacant probation officer positions at the North Toronto Probation Office.

The employer argued that it had the management right to determine staffing levels and that a significant drop in caseloads made filling the positions unnecessary.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding no evidence of bad faith and confirming that the employer was not obliged to fill vacancies when there was insufficient work available.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of a correctional officer claiming the employer failed to properly calculate his Continuous Service Date.

The union argued his service should date back to his initial start in the public service in 2010, despite taking a new position in 2017.

The employer provided an email showing the employee resigned from his previous position effective December 18, 2017, before starting his new fixed-term role.

The Arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that under Article 18.4 of the collective agreement, the employee's resignation deemed his continuous service up to that point to have terminated.

The Employer terminated the Grievor's employment for abandonment.

At the scheduled arbitration hearing, the Grievor failed to appear.

The Union requested an adjournment sine die, while the Employer sought dismissal of the grievance.

The Arbitrator declined to grant an indefinite adjournment or dismiss the grievance immediately, instead granting an adjournment on terms requiring the Grievor to provide medical documentation explaining his absence and the Union to provide particulars of its challenge by a specified date.

The grievor, a former Correctional Services Officer, filed a grievance six years after her facility closed and she accepted a severance package.

She alleged she was not informed of the option to take a fixed-term position instead of severance.

The Employer argued the grievance was extremely untimely and that no full-time staff were offered fixed-term status as an option.

The Arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding it was filed far beyond the 30-day time limit in the collective agreement, causing extreme prejudice to the Employer, and that the grievor had been presented with the same agreed-upon options as other displaced employees.

The Grievor, who had a workplace accommodation for a shoulder injury, filed a grievance alleging that a manager treated her in a demeaning and disrespectful manner when questioning her ability to work overtime in posts other than her accommodated assignment.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the Employer was entitled to inquire about the Grievor's ability to work other posts within her medical restrictions, and that the evidence did not establish that the manager yelled at or harassed the Grievor during their meeting.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of a correctional officer alleging that the employer incorrectly calculated his Continuous Service Date (CSD) in the HR system, causing him to miss a career development opportunity.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the CSD was correctly calculated based on the number of full-time weeks the grievor worked prior to rolling over from a fixed-term contract to a permanent full-time position.

The grievance was denied.

The Union grieved the Employer's decision to deny the Grievor's request for a job share agreement under Appendix 42 of the collective agreement.

The matter proceeded via the Expedited Mediation-Arbitration process.

The Arbitrator found no breach of the collective agreement and dismissed the grievance without reasons, in accordance with the negotiated protocol.

The Union filed grievances alleging that the Employer violated the collective agreement by failing to post Cleaner 2 positions at the Toronto East Detention Centre and by using an external contractor to perform cleaning work.

The arbitrator found that cleaning work at the facility had historically been performed by inmates, not bargaining unit members, meaning the work was not exclusive to the bargaining unit.

Furthermore, the minor amount of cleaning work performed by the external contractor was captured by the de minimis principle.

The grievances were dismissed.

The grievor, a Correctional Officer, filed a grievance alleging the Employer incorrectly calculated his Continuous Service Date (CSD), causing him to lose five years of continuous service.

He claimed his hours worked as a fixed-term employee and while on WSIB should have been counted as 40-hour weeks.

The Arbitrator found the grievor failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove his claim for the five years.

However, based on the parties' review of the hours, the Arbitrator found an error in the calculation and directed the Employer to add 10 weeks to the grievor's CSD.

The Employer brought a motion to dismiss two grievances (the 2018 Grievance and the 2019 Grievance) on the basis that the particulars provided by the Union did not make out a prima facie case.

The 2018 Grievance alleged harassment and bullying by a manager, including intrusive questioning about a "Take Your Kid to Work Day" event and alleged insensitivity regarding religious observances.

The Arbitrator found that the facts alleged in the 2018 Grievance, even if true, did not objectively constitute harassment or discrimination, and dismissed it.

The 2019 Grievance alleged discrimination, reprisal, and bad faith related to the termination of the Grievor's fixed-term contract and failure to obtain a permanent position.

The Arbitrator found that the particulars for the 2019 Grievance, if true, could result in a finding of a breach of the collective agreement, and dismissed the motion with respect to that grievance, allowing it to proceed to a hearing.

The union grieved that a supervisor's actions toward a racialized employee constituted intimidation, racial discrimination, racial profiling, and created a poisoned work environment.

The supervisor had ordered the grievor to complete an occurrence report for arriving late and commented on his uniform.

The arbitrator found that the supervisor strictly enforced rules for all employees and had also requested an occurrence report from a non-racialized co-worker who arrived late.

Finding no nexus between the grievor's treatment and his race, the arbitrator dismissed the grievance.

The Union filed grievances alleging the Employer breached a local Compressed Workweek Agreement (CWWA) by failing to place the Grievor in his selected post following a permanent vacancy.

The Employer argued the assignment of posts falls within management rights and is not subject to arbitral review, relying on a provision in the CWWA that refers staffing disputes to the MERC Co-Chairs.

The Arbitrator found that the CWWA was negotiated pursuant to the Central Collective Agreement and constitutes a fetter on management rights, making the dispute arbitrable.

The grievances were allowed, and the issue of damages for lost overtime opportunities was remitted to the parties.

A claim for commuting costs was dismissed as not reasonably foreseeable.

The union filed grievances on behalf of drivers at the Toronto South Detention Centre, claiming they were unfairly denied the custodial responsibility allowance (CRA).

The employer argued that pursuant to a prior arbitration decision, Motor Vehicle Operators are not entitled to the CRA, and it had moved to regularize the practice province-wide.

The arbitrator agreed with the employer, finding that drivers are not responsible for the custody of inmates in their charge as required by the collective agreement, and dismissed the grievances.

The grievor failed to attend her termination grievance hearing and subsequently failed to respond to a Board order requiring her to provide an explanation for her non-attendance.

The employer renewed its motion to dismiss the grievance.

The union requested a sine die adjournment, noting it had been unable to contact the grievor.

The Arbitrator granted the employer's motion and dismissed the grievance, finding that the grievor had completely ignored the proceedings and the union's attempts to contact her, and that it would be inappropriate to adjourn the matter indefinitely on speculation about her health.

The third party, a Dispute Resolution Officer, brought a motion arguing that she should not be considered the least senior employee at risk of being bumped by the complainant.

She argued that a more recently hired employee should be displaced instead, and that the current seniority list should be used rather than the list from when the bumping rights crystallized.

The Arbitrator dismissed the motion, holding that arbitral jurisprudence and the collective agreement require bumping rights to be assessed based on the circumstances frozen at the time the alleged violation crystallized, not on a moving seniority list.

The parties made submissions regarding the process for a timely and efficient hearing of the grievance.

The arbitrator ordered the employer to identify suitable accommodated positions for the grievor based on a functional abilities evaluation and to provide particulars of its search efforts.

The union was ordered to provide particulars regarding the earliest date the grievor could return to work.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of a correctional officer.

The grievor failed to attend two scheduled mediation/arbitration proceedings despite receiving notice.

The arbitrator noted that a failure to attend can be viewed as an abandonment of the grievance.

The arbitrator ordered the grievor to attend the next scheduled session, failing which the grievance would be deemed withdrawn.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of a correctional officer.

The grievor failed to attend two scheduled expedited mediation/arbitration proceedings despite receiving notice.

The arbitrator ordered the grievor to attend the next scheduled session, failing which the grievance would be deemed withdrawn.