OGSB 2019

The union sought damages for non-tangible losses, including mental distress and injury to dignity, following a previous award that found the employer failed to accommodate the grievor's ergonomic requirements.

The union proposed a range of $15,000 to $35,000, while the employer proposed $10,000 to $20,000.

The arbitrator awarded $15,000, noting that the employer's breach occurred over distinct sub-periods and that the grievor's distress was not exclusively caused by the employer's actions.

Additionally, the arbitrator ruled that the employer was entitled to deduct a prior overpayment from the settlement monies paid to the grievor under a Memorandum of Agreement, rejecting the union's technical and equitable arguments against the deduction.

The Union requested an adjournment sine die of the grievance hearing because the grievor was on a leave of absence.

The arbitrator granted the adjournment request.

To minimize prejudice to the employer, the arbitrator ordered the Union to provide full particulars of the grievance within 90 days.

The parties were directed to contact the Board to schedule a hearing date after the grievor's return from leave.

The Grievor, a Correctional Officer, was discharged after failing to scan a dayroom and inspect a shower stall, resulting in his failure to observe an ongoing inmate fight and an injured inmate.

The Union grieved the discharge, arguing it was excessive and amounted to differential treatment compared to other officers who missed similar incidents.

The Arbitrator found the Grievor's misconduct was serious, as he neglected his core duties, and that his previous disciplinary record for similar conduct undermined his rehabilitative potential.

The Arbitrator also rejected the differential treatment argument, finding the comparator incidents were not substantially similar.

The grievance was dismissed and the discharge upheld.

The union filed a group grievance regarding the assignment of work to nurses at the Toronto South Detention Centre.

The parties participated in an expedited mediation-arbitration process.

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

In a dispute over a job competition for a Trial Coordinator position, the Grievance Settlement Board issued procedural directions following an unsuccessful mediation.

The Board joined the successful incumbent as an interested third party and ordered the Employer to produce the redacted applications and resumes of the screened-in candidates and the grievors.

The Board also set parameters for the upcoming expedited hearing, including a schedule for raising preliminary motions and evidentiary issues.

The union filed a grievance alleging that the employer failed to appropriately accommodate the grievor, resulting in a loss of opportunity to earn shift premiums.

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

The arbitrator concluded that the employer should compensate the grievor and ordered the payment of $500 in damages.

The grievance was upheld in part.

The grievor failed to attend a scheduled two-day mediation-arbitration session without providing a reasonable explanation.

The arbitrator directed the grievor to attend the next scheduled session, warning that failure to do so could result in the union proceeding in his absence or the grievances being deemed withdrawn.

The Union requested an adjournment of the arbitration hearing on the basis that the grievor was medically unable to attend.

On consent of both parties, the arbitrator granted the adjournment, cancelled the scheduled hearing dates, and set a new peremptory date.

The grievor was ordered to provide medical information confirming her inability to attend, failing which the grievance would be dismissed.

Any claim for damages was suspended for the duration of the adjournment.

In a termination grievance arising from two workplace investigations into the grievor's conduct, the union sought disclosure of the investigation files.

The arbitrator ordered the employer to disclose the investigation reports and any documents collected or created as part of the investigations into complaints from two individuals.

The disclosure was made subject to strict confidentiality conditions, including that the documents only be used for the arbitration and not be shared electronically.

The grievor, a Correctional Officer with 29 years of unblemished service, was given a two-day suspension for using profane and derogatory language towards a Deputy Superintendent during a dispute over staffing and safety in the Psychiatric Unit.

The arbitrator found that while the grievor's conduct breached the Employer's Code of Conduct and Professionalism Policy, the grievor's long service, clean disciplinary record, and forthright admission of the misconduct served as significant mitigating factors.

The grievance was allowed in part, and the two-day suspension was reduced to a one-day suspension with compensation for lost wages and benefits.

The employer brought a motion to dismiss the grievance on a preliminary basis after the grievor failed to attend a scheduled hearing, instead attending work.

The union brought a cross-motion to adjourn the matter sine die due to the grievor's mental health condition.

The arbitrator declined to dismiss the grievance at this stage, noting the grievor may have been misguided by a union steward who inappropriately acted as an intermediary.

The arbitrator also denied the union's request for an indefinite adjournment, instead ordering the union to obtain specific medical documentation regarding the grievor's ability to participate in the proceedings.

The parties agreed to adjourn a scheduled mediation at the Union's request.

To ensure a productive rescheduled mediation, the Arbitrator directed the Union to prepare and provide to Employer counsel a written outline of its position on the monetary value of any outstanding remedy for both grievances, along with the rationale for its position, by a specified date.

The union filed a grievance alleging the employer breached its duty to accommodate the grievor's disability.

The grievor provided a doctor's note stating she was unable to regularly make it to work prior to 9 a.m. due to ongoing medical issues.

The employer complied with the scheduling recommendation but repeatedly sought additional medical information to understand the nature of the restrictions.

After almost two years of unsuccessful attempts to obtain this information, the employer required the grievor to attend work at her regularly scheduled time.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that the medical information provided was insufficient to trigger the duty to accommodate and that the employer's requests for additional information were reasonable.

The union grieved three disciplinary suspensions imposed on the grievor: a one-day suspension for insubordination, a one-day suspension for inappropriate comments to a co-worker, and a three-day suspension for insubordination.

The matter proceeded via expedited mediation-arbitration.

The arbitrator found that the employer had just cause to discipline the grievor and dismissed the grievances.

The Union brought a motion seeking an order that the Employer produce contact information for an ODSP client so the Union could potentially call her as a witness in a grievance alleging harassment and failure to accommodate.

Following the motion hearing, the Arbitrator invited further submissions on newly raised case law.

The Union requested an immediate decision, arguing it needed the information before the grievor concluded her testimony.

The Arbitrator declined to issue an immediate order, finding no unfairness in allowing the grievor's testimony to continue without the Union having spoken to the client, whereas denying the Employer the right to comment on the new case law would be unfair.

The Arbitrator directed that the Employer could make further submissions at the next hearing date.

The union requested an adjournment of a scheduled hearing date due to the grievor's 'family emergency', following a previous adjournment for a medical appointment.

The employer opposed the adjournment and sought dismissal of the grievances, arguing the grievor failed to provide adequate documentation for his absences as ordered by the Board.

The Arbitrator found the grievor demonstrated a lack of interest in advancing his grievances by failing to provide the required documentation and failing to comply with the Board's order.

The employer's motion was granted and the grievances were dismissed.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of a seasonal employee who was screened out of a competition for a full-time position.

At the scheduled hearing, the grievor failed to appear.

The union representative provided evidence of multiple unsuccessful attempts to contact the grievor to confirm whether he wished to proceed.

The employer moved to dismiss the grievance.

The arbitrator concluded that the grievor had proper notice and had abandoned the grievance in law, and accordingly dismissed the grievance.

In a grievance arbitration, the Employer sought an order requiring the Union to provide full and sufficient particulars.

The Arbitrator granted the request, ordering the Union to provide detailed particulars for all individuals wishing to pursue their grievance by February 29, 2020.

The union filed a grievance alleging that the employer failed to distribute overtime fairly and equitably, contrary to the collective agreement, after an employee was authorized to work overtime on three dates.

The employer argued that the overtime was authorized by a good faith scheduling mistake and was not discovered until after it had been worked.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that the term 'assignment' in the collective agreement does not apply to situations where the employer was unaware, due to a good faith error, that it had authorized overtime.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to strike certain particulars provided by the union in a grievance alleging discrimination.

The original grievance and discussions at the formal resolution stage meeting focused on discrimination based on union activity, denial of compassionate leave, and vacation treatment.

The union later provided particulars adding allegations of discrimination based on religion and ancestry, including incidents from a 2014 party.

The arbitrator held that adding new grounds of discrimination constituted an improper expansion of the grievance, as the grievor had made a deliberate choice to grieve only anti-union discrimination initially.

The allegations regarding the 2014 party were also struck as untimely.

The employer's motion was granted in part, and the union was directed to provide proper dates for remaining allegations.