OGSB 2020

The employer requested particulars of the grievance.

The association advised that the complainant was medically unable to provide the necessary information until September 8, 2020, but could not share the medical note without permission.

To preserve the scheduled hearing date, the employer agreed to a truncated timeframe.

The arbitrator directed the association to provide the particulars by September 17, 2020.

In an Article 22.16 MedArb proceeding under the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act, the arbitrator heard submissions regarding a wage claim.

The arbitrator ordered the employer to pay the grievor $1,145 in wages.

The Employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss a set of consolidated grievances regarding the transfer of Management Biologist positions from the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry to the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks.

The Employer argued the grievances failed to make out a prima facie case and constituted stand-alone challenges to management rights outside the Board's jurisdiction.

The Arbitrator dismissed the motion, finding that the grievances raised factual disputes regarding whether vacancies were created that required posting under the collective agreement, and that these allegations provided the Board with derivative jurisdiction to review the exercise of management rights.

The grievor, a Correctional Officer, filed two grievances alleging the Ministry breached the collective agreement by issuing a reprimand and a three-day suspension without pay.

The Ministry argued the grievor violated the Correctional Services Code of Conduct and Professionalism.

The parties referred the grievance to mediation/arbitration.

The arbitrator denied the grievance, finding the discipline appropriate in all the circumstances, and issued a decision without precedent or prejudice and without written reasons.

The parties agreed to a procedure for addressing outstanding grievances regarding entitlement to the Custodial Responsibility Allowance (CRA) for various positions.

The arbitrator set a schedule for the exchange of written submissions based on the union's filed particulars.

The employer brought a motion to enforce an Interim Agreement and dismiss the grievance.

The Interim Agreement provided that if the ultimate outcome was a change in the grievor's reporting relationship such that she no longer reported to a specific manager, the grievance would be withdrawn.

Following a department reorganization, the grievor's reporting relationship was permanently changed.

The union argued the change was due to reorganization rather than accommodation and alleged bad faith.

The arbitrator found that the ultimate outcome required by the Interim Agreement had been met, regardless of the reason for the change, and deemed the grievance withdrawn.

Six Correctional Officers filed grievances alleging the employer violated the collective agreement by failing to pay them overtime based on an annual balancing of hours under Schedule A. The employer brought a motion to dismiss, arguing the grievors are classified as CO2 under Schedule 4.7, not Schedule A. The Arbitrator upheld the employer's motion, finding the collective agreement unambiguously places CO2s in Schedule 4.7, and applying Schedule A would effectively amend the collective agreement.

The grievances were dismissed.

The union filed a grievance challenging the employer's practice of applying merit increases for fixed-term correctional officers on the first day of the month following their completion of the required threshold hours.

The employer argued that the phrase 'a minimum of' in article 31A.2.3 of the collective agreement gave it open-ended discretion to determine when to apply the salary progression.

The arbitrator rejected the employer's interpretation, finding that the mandatory language 'shall progress' requires the progression to be granted immediately upon the completion of the specified minimum number of hours.

The union's interpretation of the collective agreement was preferred.

The grievor, a Correctional Officer, was terminated for multiple instances of misconduct, including time theft, failing to disclose a criminal charge, and failing to cooperate with a Ministry of Correctional Services Act Section 22 investigation.

The Union grieved the termination, arguing the investigations were discriminatory and the penalty excessive.

The Arbitrator found that the Employer established just cause for discipline on several serious allegations, particularly the time theft, failure to disclose the criminal charge, and failure to cooperate with the investigation.

The Arbitrator concluded that the grievor's dishonest behaviour constituted a breach of trust that irreparably damaged the employment relationship, and dismissed the grievance.

At a video conference hearing, an attempt to mediate the dispute was unsuccessful.

The arbitrator determined that opening statements would not be useful due to factual issues and the employer's failure to provide full production of arguably relevant documentation.

The arbitrator ordered the employer to provide full disclosure of all arguably relevant material to the union by September 4, 2020, and scheduled a subsequent video conference to deal with pre-hearing motions.

In a grievance concerning the duty to accommodate, both parties sought pre-hearing production of documents.

The Union requested additional particulars regarding the Employer's search for modified work, including regular and fixed-term positions.

The Employer requested the grievor's medical records and sought to share them with the grievor's former manager.

The Arbitrator ordered the Employer to produce the requested job search particulars, finding them arguably relevant to the merits.

The Arbitrator also ordered the Union to produce the medical records but restricted access to Employer counsel and two advisors to balance the grievor's privacy interests with the Employer's right to a fair hearing.

In an ongoing arbitration proceeding held virtually due to COVID-19, the Union requested permission to share arguably relevant documents with the Grievor to prepare its case.

The Employer raised confidentiality concerns.

The Arbitrator issued an interim order permitting the Union to share the documents with the Grievor for the purpose of preparing for cross-examination, subject to strict conditions regarding copying, use, return or destruction, and ongoing confidentiality.

The Arbitrator warned that a breach of the order could result in the dismissal of the grievances.

The Union filed grievances on behalf of several employees whose applications for the Transition Exit Initiative (TEI) were denied by the Employer.

The Union argued that the Employer fettered its discretion by only considering whether the employees' positions were still required.

The Arbitrator dismissed the grievances, finding no meaningful distinction from previous decisions which held that the Employer has broad discretion under Appendix 46 to determine whether an employee's exit supports the transformation of the Ontario Public Service.

The grievor, a fixed term contract Correctional Officer at the Central East Correctional Centre, filed a grievance alleging that the Employer violated the collective agreement by allowing fixed term contract officers transferring from other institutions to retain their accumulated hours for the purpose of rollovers to regular classified status.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that the grievor failed to provide any agreements supporting his claim and noting that standard Memoranda of Agreement require fixed term officers to be employed at the specific location for one year prior to qualifying for a rollover.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued procedural directions following a case management session for a grievance relating to the termination of the grievor's employment.

The Arbitrator set deadlines for filing an Agreed Statement of Facts, declarations in lieu of examination-in-chief, and a joint Book of Documents.

Time limits were also established for opening statements, supplementary oral evidence, cross-examination, and final arguments.

In a grievance arbitration, the Arbitrator directed the parties to confer and agree upon letters to be sent to the grievor's family doctor and a specialist.

The Arbitrator ordered that once the letters were agreed upon, they would be appended to an order directing the doctors to respond.

The Arbitrator also granted the employer's request to make future submissions on whether the grievances should be dismissed.

The employer brought a motion to adjourn a scheduled hearing date in a termination grievance, citing difficulties in preparing a reply witness who was no longer an employee, exacerbated by Covid-19 restrictions.

The union opposed the motion, arguing the grievor had already faced significant delay.

The Arbitrator granted the adjournment, finding no pattern of delay by the employer, accepting the logistical difficulties, and noting that a replacement date was available shortly after the originally scheduled dates, resulting in minimal overall delay.

The Grievance Settlement Board held a case management session regarding consolidated grievances over the use of surveillance cameras at correctional facilities.

The Arbitrator issued procedural directions, including the selection of reference grievances, the use of written declarations in lieu of oral evidence in chief, timelines for filing declarations, and limits on oral evidence and cross-examination.

The Union brought a motion to consolidate ten grievances filed by the grievor between 2017 and 2019.

The Employer agreed to consolidate the 2017 and 2019 grievances but objected to including the 2018 grievance, arguing it involved a discrete issue concerning a leave request made to a different manager.

The Arbitrator granted the motion to consolidate all ten grievances, finding that the 2018 grievance alleged discriminatory treatment, which was also raised in the 2019 grievances.

The Arbitrator concluded that hearing the 2018 grievance separately would prejudice the grievor, be inefficient, and risk inconsistent decisions.

The union grieved 3, 5, and 7-day suspensions imposed on employees for failing to follow managerial meal service directives.

During a conference call to discuss the process for a video-conference hearing, the arbitrator issued case management directions.

The arbitrator ordered that evidence in chief take the form of written declarations, set a schedule for filing the declarations, and established rules for oral evidence and cross-examination at the hearing.