OGSB 2019

The union grieved the employer's decision to screen out three incumbent employees from an interview for a Trial Coordinator position.

The arbitrator conducted a prima facie review of the screening documentation and scoring.

The arbitrator found that the grievors were improperly excluded from the interview process, as their scores on two criteria should have been higher when compared to the successful candidates.

The arbitrator directed that the interviews should be re-done, subject to further submissions from the parties and the incumbent at the next hearing date.

The parties engaged in a med-arb process to resolve outstanding overtime grievances at various institutions within the Ministry of the Solicitor General.

Following hearings over several days, the arbitrator issued a bottom-line award detailing the disposition of numerous individual grievances, with some upheld for specific hours of overtime and others dismissed.

The Union brought a motion to consolidate two sets of grievances: one challenging the employer's installation of hidden video cameras, and another challenging the subsequent paid suspension of the local union president.

The Union argued both sets of grievances were connected by allegations of anti-union animus and arose from the same sequence of events.

The Grievance Settlement Board granted the motion, finding sufficient overlap in the factual circumstances and legal issues to justify consolidation for a more efficient hearing process.

In an interim decision, the Arbitrator made case management directions regarding the production of documents.

The Employer was ordered to produce medical records and other documents relevant to the accommodation of an employee, subject to redactions and a confidentiality order.

The Employer also stipulated to certain facts regarding another employee's accommodation, and the issue of remedy was bifurcated from the merits on the agreement of the parties.

The arbitrator issued a procedural direction requiring the Union and the Employer to prepare and exchange written outlines of their positions on the monetary value of any outstanding remedy, along with their rationale, prior to a scheduled mediation concerning grievances over compressed work agreement scheduling obligations.

The union grieved the employer's failure to offer Tier 1 overtime opportunities to Tier 3 employees, specifically the grievor.

The employer admitted the breach of the collective agreement but argued the grievor was not qualified to perform the work and would not have accepted the shifts anyway.

The arbitrator found that the grievor was capable of performing the Tier 1 work.

However, based on the evidence, the arbitrator concluded that the grievor would not have accepted the overtime shifts had they been offered.

Therefore, no monetary remedy was awarded.

The union filed two grievances on behalf of a correctional officer alleging mistreatment by management at the Kenora Jail.

The first grievance alleged a superintendent created a poisoned work environment, while the second alleged an operational manager publicly mocked the first grievance, breaching the grievor's privacy.

The matter proceeded via expedited mediation/arbitration.

The grievor did not attend the hearing and no further particulars were provided.

The arbitrator dismissed both grievances, finding an insufficient factual basis to establish any wrongdoing by management.

The grievor, a Correctional Officer, filed a grievance alleging the employer breached the collective agreement by suspending him with pay during an ongoing investigation.

The parties referred the grievance to mediation/arbitration and requested a decision without precedent or prejudice, and without written reasons.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance.

The grievor, a Correctional Officer, requested time off which was denied.

The grievor subsequently booked off sick for the same days.

The Employer requested a medical note, suspecting sick leave abuse, and the grievor complied.

The grievor sought reimbursement of $40.00 for the cost of the note.

The Arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that under Article 44.10 of the collective agreement, the Employer had a reasonable basis to request the note and was not obligated to cover its cost.

Three Inmate Records Clerks grieved that the Employer violated the collective agreement by assigning overtime work on a statutory holiday to a Senior Inmate Records Clerk instead of them.

The Arbitrator found that the work performed—preparing inmate transfer files—was regularly performed by Inmate Records Clerks, and the Senior Clerk's role was primarily to oversee and check that work.

Therefore, an Inmate Records Clerk should have been offered the overtime.

Applying the local overtime protocol, the Arbitrator determined that the most senior classified grievor with the fewest overtime hours was entitled to the opportunity.

The grievance of that employee was upheld and she was awarded 7.25 hours of holiday pay, while the other two grievances were dismissed.

The Association (AMAPCEO) filed grievances alleging that a co-worker (B) deliberately assaulted the grievor in the workplace and that the subsequent investigation was tainted by racial bias.

AMAPCEO sought an order preventing the grievor and B from working together.

B and her union (OPSEU) brought a motion to intervene in the arbitration to protect B's reputation and collective agreement rights.

The arbitrator granted the motion to intervene on a limited basis, finding a reasonable potential for conflict between the interests of B and the employer regarding the factual findings of the alleged assault and the potential remedy.

The Employer brought a motion to dismiss the union's grievance, arguing it was a classification grievance over which the Grievance Settlement Board lacks jurisdiction.

The arbitrator agreed, noting that section 52(1) of the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act and article 22.12 of the Collective Agreement explicitly exclude classification grievances from the Board's jurisdiction.

The grievance was dismissed.

The union filed a group grievance alleging that the employer violated Appendix COR33 of the collective agreement by failing to provide 36 hours of compensating leave for the 2018 calendar year.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that the clear wording of the collective agreement only obligated the employer to provide compensating leave effective January 1, 2016, and January 1, 2017, with no requirement for 2018.

The union grieved the insurer's decision to terminate the complainant's long-term income protection (LTIP) benefits.

The insurer had determined that the complainant was no longer totally disabled and could return to work.

The arbitrator reviewed extensive medical documentation, including independent medical examinations and reports from treating physicians, which diagnosed the complainant with chronic pain syndrome.

The arbitrator found the complainant to be a credible historian whose subjective reporting of debilitating symptoms was supported by her treating physicians.

The arbitrator concluded that the complainant was unable to perform the essential duties of any occupation for which she was reasonably fitted, and therefore met the definition of total disability for the 'any occupation' period.

The union filed a grievance alleging the employer failed to apply a negotiated 2.9% general wage increase to the wait staff classification on January 1, 2019.

The parties had previously signed a memorandum of settlement providing for the increase, but the finalized collective agreement specified exact hourly rates.

Following a statutory increase in the minimum wage to $14.00, the wait staff rate fell below the minimum and was raised to $14.00 by operation of law.

The union argued the 2.9% increase should apply to the new $14.00 rate.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, holding that the explicit rates in the ratified collective agreement govern over the memorandum of settlement, and the arbitrator lacked jurisdiction to award an increase not reflected in the collective agreement's wage schedule.

The union filed a grievance alleging harassment, bullying, and a poisonous work environment following an organizational change that altered the grievor's reporting relationship and daily duties.

After mediation failed, the employer raised a preliminary objection that the union failed to establish a prima facie breach of the collective agreement.

The arbitrator reviewed the union's statement of particulars and found that most of the allegations, including changes to duties and micro-management, did not constitute a violation of the collective agreement.

The arbitrator ordered the union to provide further particulars regarding specific comments allegedly made by a manager before determining whether to dismiss the grievance.

Following unsuccessful mediation in a mediation-arbitration process, the arbitrator issued procedural directions to expedite the arbitration.

The union was directed to provide a Will Say statement from the grievor detailing alleged collective agreement violations, and the employer was directed to provide a Will Say statement outlining the reasons for a letter of reprimand.

A conference call and potential hearing date were scheduled.

The Union filed grievances alleging the Employer breached a compressed work week agreement by failing to schedule 147 classified Correctional Officers to specific positions and failing to backfill those specific positions on a daily basis.

The Arbitrator found that previous decisions had already determined the issue, concluding that while the Employer must schedule 147 classified COs daily and backfill absences, the agreement does not restrict the Employer's inherent right to assign work or require backfilling when a CO is reassigned to other duties.

The union brought motions to consolidate a benefits grievance with existing discipline and discharge grievances, and to determine the order of proceedings.

The union sought to have the benefits grievance heard first due to the grievor's pressing need for dental care, and to have the discharge grievance heard before the discipline grievances.

The arbitrator declined to consolidate the grievances as they did not share common questions of fact or law, but ordered them to be heard together.

The arbitrator ruled that the benefits grievance would be heard after the discipline and discharge grievances, and that the employer could proceed with the discipline grievances before the discharge grievance to avoid prejudice to its case.

The union filed a grievance alleging workplace harassment and discrimination on behalf of the grievor.

The employer brought a motion to strike two particulars from the grievance, arguing they related to events that occurred six and nine years prior to the grievance and involved a different manager.

The arbitrator applied the Grievance Settlement Board's three-year guideline for harassment and discrimination grievances, finding no exceptional circumstances to warrant a departure from the rule.

The employer's motion was granted, and the union was precluded from calling evidence on the dated particulars.