OGSB 2021

The parties reached a settlement resolving a 2014 policy grievance and an associated application for judicial review.

As part of the settlement, the parties requested that the Grievance Settlement Board issue a further decision amending two paragraphs of its July 18, 2017 decision regarding the breadth of a medical consent form and the employer's entitlement to health information.

The Board ordered the requested amendments and deemed the grievance and judicial review application withdrawn.

The Employer brought a preliminary motion to strike paragraphs 22-24 of the Union's particulars, arguing that allegations regarding difficulties obtaining vacation time and expectations to work weekends and statutory holidays improperly expanded the scope of the grievance.

The Arbitrator dismissed the motion, finding that while the paragraphs could not support an independent violation of the vacation or hours of work provisions, they were arguably relevant to the grievor's core allegation that changes to her work resulted in overwork and stress.

The Union requested an amendment to a previous order requiring the Employer to produce a court recording.

The Union sought to expand the time frame of the recording to be produced from noon to approximately 1:30 p.m.

The Employer did not object to the request.

The Arbitrator ordered the Employer to forthwith produce the requested court recording for the amended time frame.

AMAPCEO filed grievances asserting that Sergeants employed in correctional institutions should be covered by its collective agreement.

OPSEU sought to intervene, arguing that if the Sergeants are employees, they belong in OPSEU's correctional bargaining unit.

AMAPCEO objected, arguing that the Ontario Labour Relations Board had already decided the representational issue in a prior certification application by PSAC, and that issue estoppel applied.

The Arbitrator found that the OLRB's prior decision was not a final determination of whether AMAPCEO had abandoned or relinquished its bargaining rights after 1995.

Therefore, issue estoppel did not apply, and OPSEU was granted the right to intervene.

The union filed a grievance claiming the grievor was short paid for the 65-day waiting period prior to receiving WSIB payments.

The employer abandoned its counterclaim for alleged double payment.

The parties exchanged documents revealing the grievor was short paid $3,652.74 for the 65-day period in 2013, and $258.51 for sick leave absences in 2014.

The arbitrator upheld the grievance and ordered the employer to pay the total amount of $3,911.25 plus interest.

The grievor failed to attend a scheduled hearing for a grievance alleging systemic workplace discrimination.

The parties agreed to adjourn, conditional on the grievor providing reasons for her absence.

After the grievor failed to provide particulars or respond to her counsel, the employer requested a conference call.

The arbitrator ordered that the grievor must provide reasons for her absence within 30 days, failing which the grievance will be dismissed.

The Union sought to retract its withdrawal of a grievance concerning escort training for Correctional Officers.

The local Union President had signed a withdrawal form after being informed by the Employer that training was up to date, but quickly realized he lacked full knowledge of the grievance's scope and historical context.

The Employer argued the withdrawal was binding.

The Arbitrator held that while withdrawn grievances generally cannot be revived, an exception exists for inadvertence or mistake.

Finding that the local President made an inadvertent error and immediately communicated it without causing detriment to the Employer, the Arbitrator rescinded the withdrawal and relisted the matter for hearing.

The Union brought a motion to have three grievances (Dismissal, Attendance Support and Management Program (ASMP), and Harassment and Discrimination) heard together.

The Employer opposed the motion and requested the Harassment and Discrimination grievance be deferred pending a College of Nurses disciplinary proceeding.

The Arbitrator ordered that the Dismissal and Harassment and Discrimination grievances be heard together, as they involved allegations of a pattern of disparate treatment.

The ASMP grievance was ordered to proceed as a stand-alone grievance because it involved a broader inquiry and different witnesses.

The Arbitrator declined to defer the Harassment and Discrimination grievance.