OGSB 2019

At a scheduled hearing for a grievance filed by several correctional officers, one of the remaining grievors failed to attend despite receiving due notice.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance as it related to that individual.

The hearing for the sole remaining grievor was directed to continue at a later date.

The union grieved a letter of counsel issued to a probation and parole officer, alleging it was unjust discipline, and also alleged harassment and discrimination by her manager.

The grievor had refused to follow her manager's direction not to enter a specific note in the Offender Tracking Information System (OTIS) regarding a child sex offender's file.

The arbitrator found that although the employer labeled the letter as non-disciplinary counseling, its finding of insubordination made it disciplinary in nature.

However, the arbitrator concluded there was just cause for the discipline because the grievor deliberately disregarded a clear direction.

The arbitrator also dismissed the harassment and discrimination claims, finding the manager's actions were either innocuous or reasonably explained, and did not constitute a pattern of improper conduct.

The grievor failed to attend his scheduled grievance arbitration hearing regarding severance pay, citing business interests.

The arbitrator adjourned the hearing and directed the grievor to provide detailed reasons for his non-attendance by a specified date, failing which the grievance would be dismissed.

If reasons are provided, the employer may bring a motion to dismiss or proceed to mediation/arbitration.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued procedural directions ahead of a scheduled hearing.

The Employer was directed to provide the Union with production of all documents arguably relevant to a grievance involving a job posting for a Client Accommodation Support Services Advisor position.

The Union was directed to provide the Employer with particulars regarding the same grievance.

The grievor, a Correctional Officer, filed a grievance alleging harassment and discrimination contrary to the collective agreement and the Human Rights Code after the employer investigated him following an inmate's death.

The employer's investigation ultimately found the allegations against the grievor were unsubstantiated.

The parties referred the grievance to mediation/arbitration.

The arbitrator found no evidence to support the allegations of discrimination or harassment and denied the grievance.

The arbitrator issued case management directions for the arbitration of three grievances referred under Article 22.16 of the collective agreement.

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

The arbitrator also imposed time limits on oral evidence and argument for the scheduled hearing.

The parties referred a grievance to mediation/arbitration under Article 22.16 of the Collective Agreement.

The arbitrator, issuing a decision without precedent or prejudice and without written reasons, awarded the grievor $5,000.00 in general damages.

The union filed a grievance alleging the grievor was improperly denied consideration for a promotion to a foreperson position.

The matter proceeded via expedited mediation-arbitration.

The arbitrator found that the employer cancelled the competition and did not fill the position for legitimate operational reasons.

The arbitrator concluded there was no violation of the collective agreement and dismissed the grievance.

The union filed grievances alleging the employer breached its duty to accommodate and the collective agreement regarding a correctional officer who suffered a compensable workplace injury after being assaulted by an inmate.

The grievor sought damages for injury to dignity after the employer required medical clearance, restricted his duties to avoid inmate contact, and bypassed him for overtime shifts.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievances, finding the employer's requirement for medical clearance and its interpretation of the medical restrictions were reasonable.

The arbitrator concluded the employer provided reasonable accommodation and did not breach the collective agreement in its overtime scheduling or by recording the grievor as 'not qualified' in its scheduling system.

The employer brought preliminary motions to dismiss three grievances related to job competitions on the grounds that they failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination and were untimely.

The arbitrator found that the union's pleadings, which only alleged the grievor's membership in protected classes and his lack of success in the competitions, failed to establish a nexus between the two, and thus did not disclose a prima facie case of discrimination.

The arbitrator also found the grievances, filed between one and five and one-half years after the competitions, were untimely.

Applying the established factors, the arbitrator declined to exercise discretion to extend the time limits and dismissed the grievances.

The Union filed a policy grievance alleging the Employer violated the Collective Agreement by not providing vacation credits to permanent part-time employees for straight-time hours worked over and above their normal weekly hours.

The Employer argued that part-time employees' vacation credits are pro-rated based on their normal scheduled weekly hours, consistent with the treatment of full-time employees who also do not accrue additional vacation for extra hours worked.

The Arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that the Collective Agreement and past practice supported pro-rating based on normal scheduled hours, and that clear language would be required to deviate from this formula.

In the context of a grievance arbitration, the parties agreed to the disclosure of the grievor's WSIB information to Employer counsel.

The Arbitrator issued a consent direction ordering the disclosure subject to strict confidentiality conditions, including that the documents only be provided to Employer counsel, not be copied further, be used solely for the preparation of the Employer's case, and be returned to Union counsel at the conclusion of the proceedings.

The grievor filed five grievances alleging that the essential services contract under the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act was illegal and violated the collective agreement.

The employer argued the board lacked jurisdiction, the issue was moot, the grievances were untimely, and there was no breach.

The parties referred the matter to mediation/arbitration and requested a decision without written reasons.

The arbitrator denied the grievances.

The grievor, a correctional officer, filed three grievances but repeatedly failed to attend scheduled expedited mediation-arbitration hearings despite receiving notice from the union.

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

During an arbitration hearing, the union brought a motion to exclude the employer's representative, the grievor's former manager, from the hearing room during the grievor's testimony.

The union argued that the manager's presence triggered the grievor's anxiety and stress, relying on medical notes from her physician.

The employer opposed the motion, arguing the manager's presence was necessary to instruct counsel.

The arbitrator found that the grievor had a medically supported restriction requiring accommodation.

Balancing the competing interests, the arbitrator ordered that the manager be excluded from the hearing room but permitted to observe the proceedings via a live video and audio feed from another room, satisfying the medical restriction while minimizing prejudice to the employer.

In a grievance alleging a failure to accommodate, the Union sought conditions on the disclosure of the grievor's medical documents and an order for particulars from the Employer.

The Employer sought production of a confidential Memorandum of Settlement regarding the grievor's LTIP benefits.

The Arbitrator ordered that the medical documents be disclosed only to Employer counsel and one instructing advisor, with further disclosure requiring consent or a Board order.

The Arbitrator also ordered the Employer to provide particulars of the accommodation steps taken, noting the shifting onus in accommodation cases.

Finally, the Union was ordered to produce the Memorandum of Settlement due to its arguable relevance.

The union filed a grievance alleging the employer violated the collective agreement by failing to offer overtime to Tier 3 employees.

At step 1 of the grievance procedure, the employer acknowledged the error and committed to posting overtime for both classifications in the future, but declined to pay the requested compensation.

The union advanced the grievance to step 2, where the employer denied the grievance, stating it was unfeasible for Tier 3 employees to perform the work.

The union raised a preliminary issue, arguing the step 1 response was a binding concession on liability.

The arbitrator agreed, finding the employer's step 1 response was a clear and unequivocal admission of a breach, leaving only the issue of remedy to be determined.

The Union filed group grievances on behalf of Classroom Assistants working in provincially-operated special needs schools, alleging the Employer violated the collective agreement by limiting their hours of work to 36.25 hours per week instead of 40.

The Employer brought a motion to dismiss the grievances for failing to make out a prima facie case.

The Arbitrator found that the collective agreement provisions relied upon by the Union, including the Salary Schedule and Article 32.2.1, did not create an entitlement to a minimum of 40 hours of work per week for seasonal employees.

The motion was granted and the grievances were dismissed.

The grievor, a Correctional Officer, requested seven days of leave to care for a hospitalized family member.

The employer granted three days of compassionate leave but denied four days of special leave.

The union grieved the denial, alleging a breach of the collective agreement.

The arbitrator, issuing a decision without written reasons at the parties' request, dismissed the grievance.

The union filed a grievance alleging that the grievor, a Records Clerk, was improperly bypassed for an overtime opportunity on May 11, 2018.

The parties resolved a separate claim for May 16, 2018.

The arbitrator found that the employer properly considered an extra shift that the grievor had accepted and then cancelled as an overtime opportunity in her favour for the purpose of equalizing overtime.

The grievance was dismissed.