OGSB 2021

The parties participated in a Med/Arb process to resolve outstanding overtime grievances at various institutions, pursuant to a 2011 Memorandum of Agreement.

The arbitrator reviewed the facts, supporting documents, and submissions for multiple grievances.

A schedule of outcomes was issued, with some grievances upheld for straight time or overtime pay, and others dismissed.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued procedural directions following an unsuccessful mediation under article 22.16 of the collective agreement.

The Board ordered the union to provide full particulars and documents 60 days before the hearing, and the employer to produce its documents and particulars 45 days after receiving the union's materials.

The parties were also directed to discuss expediting the process and to address whether a compressed work week grievance should be heard together with the other grievances.

The Union filed a policy grievance claiming that its bargaining rights extended to the PRESTO division of Metrolinx, arguing that PRESTO was functionally integrated into Metrolinx and that certain positions within PRESTO performed bargaining unit work.

The Employer maintained that the Union's bargaining rights were restricted to the GO Transit division, as explicitly stated in the collective agreement.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the collective agreement clearly restricted bargaining rights to GO Transit and that PRESTO existed as a legitimate, identifiable division without sufficient functional integration to extend the bargaining unit.

The employer brought a motion to dismiss two grievances alleging workplace harassment and bullying by a manager, arguing the union's particulars failed to disclose a prima facie case.

The union alleged the manager yelled at an employee for sitting at the wrong desk, mocked two employees for standing close together, and aggressively reprimanded an employee regarding mask-wearing.

The arbitrator accepted the allegations as true for the purpose of the motion and noted the manager's conduct was inappropriate and disrespectful.

However, the arbitrator concluded the conduct fell short of the definition of harassment under the collective agreement and the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The motion was granted and the grievances were dismissed.

The union filed a grievance seeking a firm commitment from the employer to negotiate a new compressed work week arrangement.

At the hearing, the union attempted to argue that the employer's failure to schedule employees according to regular hours resulted in unpaid overtime.

The arbitrator held that the issue of overtime was an impermissible expansion of the scope of the grievance, as it was not mentioned in the original grievance document.

Furthermore, the arbitrator ruled that the Grievance Settlement Board lacks jurisdiction to direct the employer to negotiate a compressed work week arrangement, as this falls within management rights.

The portion of the grievance relating to the compressed work week was dismissed.

The matter involves a contested job competition for the position of Trial Coordinator.

The union and the employer agreed to resolve the matter by written submissions and proposed a schedule.

The incumbent third party did not object to the proposed schedule.

The arbitrator issued directions setting out the schedule for the parties to provide their written submissions, including submissions on the employer's preliminary motion to dismiss one of the grievances.

In a grievance arbitration involving multiple related grievances filed by an employee at the Ontario Correctional Institute, the Grievance Settlement Board issued a case management order.

The Board ordered the union and the employer to provide each other with full written particulars of the material facts and copies of all relevant documents in their possession, establishing a timetable for the exchange and for raising any preliminary motions.

The grievor sought reconsideration of a January 6, 2021 decision, claiming additional money was owed by the employer, including unpaid WSIB amounts, interest on delayed payments, and excessive tax deductions.

The arbitrator reviewed the comprehensive payments document provided by the employer and found no errors or miscalculations to support the grievor's claims.

The arbitrator dismissed the first four claims but allowed the employer an opportunity to respond to the grievor's sixth claim regarding alleged double CPP and EI deductions.

In a job competition grievance, the arbitrator ordered the employer to produce the interview scores of the successful candidates and the interview materials for each grievor, including the ideal answers.

The production was subject to strict confidentiality conditions, limiting use to the mediation or litigation of the grievance and requiring destruction or return of the documents at the conclusion of the proceedings.

The grievor, a Correctional Officer, grieved the employer's denial of her request for six compassionate leave days to care for her daughter following emergency surgery.

The employer had granted three days but denied the remainder.

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

The arbitrator granted the grievance in part, ordering the employer to pay the grievor for six days of lost wages, but declined to award damages.

The parties agreed to a procedural framework for hearing 11 related grievances before the Grievance Settlement Board.

The arbitrator issued a consent order directing that the grievances be heard separately in chronological order, with evidence from the first grievance applying to subsequent ones, and set timelines for particulars and document production.

The grievor, a Social Worker II, grieved the employer's denial of her request for compassionate leave for a scheduled shift.

The parties referred the grievance to mediation/arbitration and requested a decision without precedential value or written reasons.

The arbitrator granted the grievance and ordered the employer to compensate the grievor for her lost wages.

The union grieved the employer's denial of a nurse's request for a 12-month leave of absence to teach at a college.

The employer maintained that granting such requests was discretionary under the collective agreement.

The parties proceeded to mediation/arbitration and requested a decision without written reasons or precedential value.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance.

The grievor, a Mental Health Nurse, grieved a three-day suspension, alleging it was without just cause and in breach of the collective agreement.

The employer maintained the suspension was justified due to significant misconduct.

The parties referred the matter to mediation/arbitration and requested a decision without precedential value or written reasons.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance.

The Employer brought a motion to dismiss two of three grievances filed by the Union on behalf of the Grievor for being untimely, and a motion to strike certain particulars from the Union's Statement of Particulars for insufficiency or lack of relevance.

The Union brought a motion for an order directing the Employer to disclose documents related to the Grievor's transfers.

The Arbitrator dismissed the two grievances as they were filed well beyond the 30-day time limit without sufficient explanation to warrant an extension.

The Arbitrator struck several paragraphs from the Statement of Particulars for failing to provide sufficient detail or for lacking arguable relevance to the remaining grievance, while allowing others to remain.

Finally, the Arbitrator ordered the Employer to disclose the requested transfer documents, finding them arguably relevant to the Grievor's claims of a toxic work environment and targeted discipline.

The union grieved a one-day suspension imposed on a correctional officer, alleging it was without just cause and breached the collective agreement.

The employer maintained the misconduct was significant.

The parties referred the matter to mediation/arbitration and requested a decision without written reasons or precedential value.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance.

The employer brought a motion to dismiss two grievances claiming call-back pay on the basis that they were filed outside the mandatory 30-day time limit under the collective agreement.

The union argued the time limit only began to run when the employees realized their preparatory work might constitute compensable work and their amended timesheets were denied.

The Arbitrator rejected this argument, finding the employees were aware of the facts giving rise to the claim at the time the work was performed.

The Arbitrator declined to extend the time limits under s. 48(16) of the Labour Relations Act and dismissed the grievances as untimely.

The Union filed a policy grievance challenging the Employer's requirement that employees complete detailed Attending Physician Statements for short-term disability/sick leave and accommodation requests, and submit them to a third-party provider (Oncidium).

The Arbitrator held that requiring the STD/Sick Leave form in the first instance for absences over 5 days breached the Collective Agreement, which only required a basic medical certificate provided to the supervisor.

The Arbitrator also found the Accommodation form was inappropriately broad and intrusive at the initial stage of the accommodation process.

Finally, the Arbitrator ruled that the Employer must pay for the completion of the forms if they require a medical examination.

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

The Grievance Settlement Board issued an order requiring the union to provide an explanation for the grievor's non-attendance, warning that failure to respond would result in dismissal.

Despite an extension of time, no response was received.

The employer requested that the grievance be dismissed.

The Board dismissed the grievance due to the grievor's failure to comply with the order and apparent lack of interest in pursuing the matter.

The union sought production of an Investigator's Report dated April 16, 2019.

The Grievance Settlement Board directed the employer to provide a copy of the report to union counsel, who may forward it to specific local union officials.

The recipients were ordered to maintain strict confidentiality and use the report solely for preparing for the litigation.