OGSB 2019

The grievor failed to attend the scheduled arbitration hearing for her termination grievance.

The union requested an adjournment, while the employer moved to dismiss the grievance.

The arbitrator declined to dismiss the grievance immediately, instead ordering the grievor to provide a written explanation for her absence within 30 days, with the employer reserving the right to renew its motion to dismiss.

The union filed a policy grievance alleging the employer violated the collective agreement by failing to recall a senior seasonal employee and instead redistributing his work to four lower-classified employees.

The employer brought preliminary motions arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction because it was a disguised classification grievance, and alternatively that the union's particulars failed to disclose a prima facie case.

The Arbitrator dismissed both motions, finding the core issue was whether the 'same position' existed for recall purposes, which is a factual determination independent of classification, and that the union's particulars were capable of establishing a violation if proven true.

The grievor filed a grievance alleging the employer violated the collective agreement by not approving adequate compensation for travel time to attend a job interview at another correctional centre.

The employer approved 4 hours, which the union argued was insufficient to cover the 4-hour round trip and the interview itself.

The arbitrator found that the employer breached Article 6.4 of the collective agreement, which provides time off with no loss of pay to attend an interview, but declined to order compensation.

The Union requested an adjournment of the grievance arbitration hearing scheduled for August 22, 2019, because the grievor was out of the country pursuing a Ph.D. After hearing submissions from counsel during a teleconference, the Arbitrator granted the adjournment request.

The Union was directed to consult with the grievor and advise how it wished to proceed.

The employer brought a motion to dismiss the grievance as inarbitrable because it was referred to arbitration nine months after the deadline set out in the collective agreement.

The union requested an extension of time under section 48(16) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, citing a clerical error as the cause of the delay.

The arbitrator declined to extend the timelines, finding that the lengthy delay could reasonably have led the employer to assume the grievance was abandoned, and dismissed the grievance.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of a correctional officer, claiming that the employer incorrectly calculated his Continuous Service Date (CSD) when he was rolled over from a fixed-term to a permanent employee.

The employer calculated the CSD as January 19, 2015, while the grievor claimed it should be his original hire date of December 15, 2014.

The arbitrator found that the grievor had worked less than 40 hours per week for five weeks during his fixed-term employment.

Under the collective agreement, only full-time weeks worked count towards the CSD.

Therefore, the employer's calculation was correct, and the grievance was denied.

The grievor, a Utility Officer Laundry, filed a grievance claiming his Continuous Service Date (CSD) was improperly calculated.

He sought credit for prior service as a Correctional Officer and as a Special Constable at the Legislative Assembly.

The arbitrator found that employment at the Legislative Assembly is not part of the Ontario Public Service (OPS) and there is no reciprocal agreement for seniority carryover.

Furthermore, the grievor's prior service as a Correctional Officer was terminated when he resigned in 2005 to join the Armed Forces, causing a break in service under the collective agreement.

The grievance was denied.

The grievor, a Correctional Officer, filed a grievance claiming he had not qualified for benefits or sick time after rolling over to full-time status.

The collective agreement required an employee to work 20 consecutive days without a break to qualify.

The grievance was filed before the grievor had met this requirement.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance as premature, noting that the grievor received his entitlements as soon as the 20-day requirement was met.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued a decision resolving numerous outstanding overtime grievances between the union and the employer.

The grievances were processed through an agreed-upon Med/Arb procedure designed to address overtime disputes on a regular basis at various institutions.

The Arbitrator provided a comprehensive appendix detailing the disposition of each individual grievance, with the majority being dismissed and several upheld with specific overtime hour awards.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of a correctional officer alleging she was penalized for performing a developmental position and denied an opportunity for a rollover position, claiming gender discrimination.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the grievor had voluntarily taken a short-term contract as a discharge planner and was therefore not a fixed-term correctional officer at the time of the posting, making her ineligible for the rollover position.

The Board also found no evidence of gender discrimination, as the discharge planner position was open to all qualified applicants.

The grievance was denied.

The grievor applied for the Transition Exit Initiative (TEI) but retired before her application was approved.

The Union grieved the denial, alleging the Employer improperly considered her eligibility for an unreduced pension, amounting to age discrimination.

The Arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding no evidence that the Senior Management Team considered her retirement status.

The denial was based on the lack of ongoing transformation in her department and the need to maintain staffing levels.

The Arbitrator accepted the Employer's evidence that a manager's comment regarding her retirement eligibility was made sympathetically, not as the reason for the denial.

A teleconference hearing was held to determine the process for outstanding issues in a group grievance.

The arbitrator ordered the employer to provide its position and preliminary particulars regarding claims for 'category A' employees by September 6, 2019.

Additionally, if the employer intends to raise an estoppel argument, it must provide particulars and identify its first witnesses by September 11, 2019.

The hearing was scheduled to continue on September 27, 2019.

The union sought an order for the production of sign-in sheets for the grievors for a one-year period to support a claim for retroactive compensation for unpaid breaks.

The employer refused, arguing the request was a fishing expedition and lacked sufficient particulars.

Applying the established test for disclosure, the arbitrator found the sign-in sheets were arguably relevant, the request was sufficiently particularized, it did not amount to a fishing expedition, and production would not cause undue prejudice.

The employer was ordered to produce the sign-in sheets.

The parties agreed to a consent order regarding the production of the grievor's medical records from health care practitioners.

The order established a process for producing redacted and unredacted copies, handling objections to redactions, and maintaining confidentiality.

The parties also agreed to consolidate a newly filed grievance with the existing grievances, with the employer waiving timeliness objections in exchange for the union agreeing not to raise allegations about the handling of a prior workplace harassment complaint.

The union filed grievances alleging a failure to accommodate.

The parties appeared before the Grievance Settlement Board to make submissions on whether the next hearing date should be adjourned and on certain production issues.

The arbitrator granted the adjournment request because the grievor was scheduled to participate in a criminal trial.

The arbitrator also ordered the employer and the union to produce specific documents related to the grievor's medical status, accommodations, shift scheduling, and written communications.

The employer brought a motion to dismiss the claims of ten employees in a group grievance regarding wage clawbacks, arguing the union failed to provide required information within the time limits set out in a First Interim Memorandum of Settlement.

The union argued the settlement only established an information-gathering process, not a final resolution of the grievance, and that a Second Interim Memorandum of Settlement clarified the cut-off date.

The arbitrator dismissed the employer's motion, finding the principle of sanctity of settlements did not apply to an interim process agreement and that equitable grounds favoured allowing the claims to proceed.

The grievor, an OPSEU bargaining unit member, grieved the employer's decision not to interview her for a position in the AMAPCEO bargaining unit.

The employer raised a preliminary objection to the Board's jurisdiction.

The Arbitrator upheld the objection, finding that an OPSEU member has no right to grieve a competition conducted under another collective agreement, and has the same status as an external candidate.

The grievance was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The Union sought production of note books kept by the grievor during his employment as a correctional officer.

The Employer agreed to produce them provided restrictions were imposed, similar to a previous order regarding log books, to prevent the grievor from publicly discussing his allegations of harassment and discrimination.

The Arbitrator ordered production subject to specific restrictions, noting that the deemed undertaking applies to the produced documents but does not extend to information the grievor already possessed before receiving the productions.

The Employer brought a preliminary motion to strike various paragraphs from the Union's Statement of Particulars in a workplace harassment grievance.

The Employer argued the particulars were untimely, irrelevant, failed to establish a prima facie case, or constituted an improper expansion of the grievance.

The arbitrator reviewed the scope of the grievances and the applicable tests for striking particulars.

Several paragraphs were struck for being untimely or expanding the scope of the grievance, while others were retained either because they fell within the permissible timeframe or because they provided necessary context to the in-scope allegations.

The union sought to consolidate two new grievances with six previously consolidated grievances filed by the same grievor.

The existing grievances alleged that the employer used performance coaching sessions to target the grievor for intimidation and harassment.

The new grievances alleged that the employer required the grievor to attend coaching sessions in person contrary to a commitment to conduct them via email.

The employer objected to consolidation, arguing the new grievances raised different issues and involved a different manager.

The Arbitrator granted the consolidation, finding that the union alleged the requirement for in-person sessions was part of the same pattern of intimidation and harassment, making it more efficient to hear all grievances together.