OGSB 2019

In an interim decision, the Grievance Settlement Board addressed the production of documents by the Toronto Police Service in response to a summons requested by the employer.

A representative of the Toronto Police Service attended the hearing and presented the requested materials.

After hearing submissions, the Arbitrator ordered the Board to provide copies of the documents to both union and employer counsel, with the union reserving its rights regarding the materials for the reconvened proceedings.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to strike certain particulars and dismiss three grievances for failing to make out a prima facie case.

The arbitrator struck portions of the union's particulars that disclosed statements made during the grievance procedure, applying grievance procedure privilege.

The arbitrator also struck particulars relating to matters resolved by a prior memorandum of settlement.

Two grievances alleging a poisoned work environment and harassment were dismissed for failing to plead facts capable of supporting the claims objectively.

A third grievance alleging discrimination in overtime allocation was permitted to proceed because it was factually linked to another grievance that had not been challenged.

The union requested an adjournment on the day of the hearing because the grievor was absent due to an unparticularized family emergency.

The employer opposed the adjournment, noting a previous adjournment had been granted based on a specialist appointment that turned out to be a physiotherapy appointment.

The arbitrator granted the adjournment but ordered the grievor to provide a written explanation for his absence and documentation confirming his previous medical appointment, warning that failure to do so could result in the grievance being dismissed.

The Union brought an application for interim relief to stay the Employer's use of a new electronic 'Bid Web' sign-up system for crew selection, arguing it was introduced unilaterally in breach of the collective agreement and caused harm by preventing junior drivers from knowing senior drivers' choices.

The Arbitrator dismissed the application, finding that the standard sign-up system remained available and the Employer had addressed the Union's concerns.

The balance of harm favoured the Employer, given its investment in training and developing the electronic system.

The grievor, a Flexible Part-Time Senior Court Services Officer, grieved a letter of discipline for insubordination after absenting himself from work without leave.

The grievor had requested leave for a family vacation but was advised not to book the trip until approval was granted.

Despite this, the grievor booked the trip and, upon being denied leave due to operational requirements, took the time off anyway.

The arbitrator found the employer's denial of leave was reasonable and the grievor's actions constituted insubordination.

The grievance was dismissed.

In a grievance alleging workplace harassment during an accommodation process, the Employer sought to strike particulars relating to events that predated the 2017 accommodation efforts.

The Arbitrator found that the earlier events involved different issues and different management personnel, making them irrelevant to whether the accommodation process itself constituted a course of conduct amounting to harassment.

The Union's allegations regarding events prior to 2017 were struck.

The Union alleged that the Employer breached a Memorandum of Settlement (MOS) when the grievor's application for an internal position was allegedly tainted by discrimination and bad faith.

The MOS provided the grievor with access to the restricted database for nine months.

The Union argued there was an implied term in the MOS that the grievor would be considered fairly and without discrimination.

The Arbitrator held that the Employer fulfilled its obligations under the MOS by providing access to the database and instructions on how to apply.

The Arbitrator concluded there was no breach of the MOS and that the Board lacked jurisdiction to hear the merits of the discrimination allegations, as they fell outside the ambit of the MOS.

The union filed grievances on behalf of an operations clerk seeking a change in work hours to accommodate child care, relying on a specific provision of the collective agreement.

The family status claim was later abandoned, and the union sought only a declaration regarding which hours of work provision applied.

The employer raised preliminary objections, arguing there was no prima facie case and the grievances were moot.

The arbitrator upheld both objections, finding that even if the union's facts were true, the grievor's schedule complied with both potential provisions, meaning no violation could be established.

Furthermore, the arbitrator found the issue moot as the real issue of assigning hours within a range was no longer addressed by the grievances.

The grievances were dismissed.

The Grievance Settlement Board directed the union to produce medical documentation regarding the grievor's ability to provide a will-say statement by a specified deadline.

The employer reserved the right to bring a motion to dismiss the grievance if the union failed to comply.

In a grievance arbitration, the Employer sought production of particulars and medical records.

The Arbitrator ordered the Union to produce particulars of its allegations of harassment and discrimination, as well as any other allegations it bears the onus of proving.

The Arbitrator further ordered the Union to seek the grievor's medical records for a period commencing three years prior to hire and to produce agreed-upon records to the Employer, with any disputes to be resolved through an agreed process.

The union filed grievances alleging the employer failed to protect the grievor's health and safety following a workplace incident and issued a 1-day disciplinary suspension without cause.

The arbitrator proceeded via mediation/arbitration under the collective agreement.

Finding concerns with the employer's investigation into the incident, the arbitrator rescinded the disciplinary suspension and remitted the matter to the parties to craft an appropriate remedy.

The parties entered into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) to resolve issues pertaining to the quantification of damages for salary and credit adjustments.

The MOA required the employer to pay the amounts owing within 60 days.

The employer failed to make the payments within the specified timeframe.

The arbitrator directed the employer to pay the amounts owing within 90 days of the award, along with the agreed daily interest that commenced on the 61st day following the signing of the MOA.

The union filed a grievance alleging that a manager made inappropriate comments regarding the union's convention, which interfered with the grievor's right to participate in lawful union activities.

The parties reached a consent decision in which the employer acknowledged the comments were inappropriate for the workplace, expressed regret for the impact on the grievor, and affirmed its obligation under the collective agreement to recognize the right of bargaining unit members to participate in union activities without management influence.

The grievor, a Cook 4 at the Toronto Jail, filed grievances alleging that the Employer improperly changed his schedule to give him statutory holidays off, depriving him of the opportunity to work and earn premium pay.

The Employer argued that the schedule changes were made in accordance with the collective agreement, which entitles employees to have statutory holidays off.

The arbitrator found no evidence of a local agreement overriding the collective agreement and noted prior Grievance Settlement Board jurisprudence confirming that the Employer is not required to schedule workers on statutory holidays unless their services are needed.

The grievances were denied.

The Union requested that one or two of its witnesses be permitted to testify by videoconference or teleconference in a grievance regarding a denied direct assignment.

The Employer opposed the request.

The Arbitrator denied the request, finding that the circumstances were not sufficiently compelling or exceptional to warrant testimony by video or teleconference.

The Union grieved the discharge of a correctional officer who engaged in numerous acts of inappropriate, unprofessional, and sexually suggestive conduct towards female inmates on a single day.

The grievor also handed out contraband, including latex gloves and cake, and failed to protect a nurse on the unit.

The Union argued the grievor's conduct was caused by workplace and personal stress and sought reinstatement.

The arbitrator upheld the discharge, finding the misconduct serious, deliberate, and a threat to institutional safety, with the grievor showing little remorse or insight.

A separate grievance alleging a violation of the collective agreement's surveillance provisions was dismissed.

However, the arbitrator declared that the Employer violated the Occupational Health and Safety Act by failing to investigate a workplace harassment complaint filed by the grievor after his suspension.

The Employer requested an order requiring the Union to provide written particulars of the grievor's allegations concerning discrimination, harassment, and failure to accommodate.

The Arbitrator granted the request, directing the Union to set out the 'who, what, when, and where' of each allegation, including identifying by name any individual whose actions are attributed to an organization, no later than 30 days prior to the next hearing date.

The Employer challenged the adequacy of the Union's particulars in a grievance alleging violations of the collective agreement, the Human Rights Code, and the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The Union acknowledged the deficiency but noted the grievor's reluctance to disclose information due to fear of workplace reprisal.

The Arbitrator agreed the particulars were insufficient and directed the grievor to provide the necessary information to Union counsel so adequate particulars could be provided to the Employer, warning that failure to do so could result in the deficient paragraphs being struck.

The union filed grievances alleging the employer failed to screen the grievor's applications for job competitions in a fair and equitable manner.

The arbitrator issued case management directions under s. 22.16 of the Collective Agreement, setting out a schedule for the production of documents, the filing of declarations in lieu of examination-in-chief, and the procedure for cross-examination and resolving preliminary issues prior to the hearing.

The grievor attended a Grievance Settlement Board hearing that concluded by noon.

He then reported to work and was paid for 6 hours.

The union grieved, arguing he should have been paid for 7.5 hours, as he likely would have worked that amount had he not attended the hearing.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding the grievor had no right to be assigned more than the minimum guaranteed hours and would not have been assigned court duties due to an ongoing accommodation dispute.

The arbitrator also denied the union's request to withdraw the grievance after argument.