OGSB 2021

Eight grievors in various positions in the Ministry of the Attorney General filed grievances after their applications for the Transition Exit Initiative (TEI) were denied prior to their retirement.

The parties submitted an Agreed Statement of Facts.

The arbitrator applied principles established in earlier cases, confirming the Employer has broad discretion under Appendix 46 of the Collective Agreement to determine whether granting a TEI request supports the transformation of the Ontario Public Service.

Finding no improper exercise of discretion, the arbitrator dismissed the grievances.

Five Youth Services Officers grieved the timing of their approved Transition Exit Initiative (TEI) applications, alleging they delayed applying due to misinformation or lack of clarity from the Employer regarding exit dates and bridging to unreduced pensions.

The Union argued this constituted arbitrary, bad faith, and discriminatory decision-making.

The Arbitrator dismissed the grievances, finding no deliberate attempt to mislead the grievors and noting that the inherent uncertainty of the TEI program's exit date negotiation meant the grievors' decisions to delay applying until they were eligible for full pensions would likely have remained the same even with better information.

Nineteen grievors employed by the Ministry of the Attorney General filed grievances alleging that the Employer improperly denied their applications for the Transition Exit Initiative (TEI) under Appendix 46 of the Collective Agreement.

The Employer maintained that the grievors' positions continued to be required and their exits would not support the transformation of the Ontario Public Service.

Applying principles established in prior awards, the Arbitrator found that the Employer retained broad discretion to approve or deny TEI requests and had properly exercised its discretion based on relevant considerations.

The grievances were dismissed.

Following a prior decision determining that Article 7.3 of the Collective Agreement applied to the remedy, the parties were unable to agree on the remedy's implementation.

The Arbitrator ordered the Employer to fix the grievors' wages at the FSA1 rate as of May 3, 2021, and set a timeline for the Employer to calculate retroactive payments starting from June 4, 2018, share the calculations with the Union, and finalize the amounts.

The grievor, a Correctional Officer, grieved a 15-day suspension alleging a breach of the collective agreement.

The parties had previously entered into Minutes of Settlement agreeing to a schedule for reducing discipline, which entitled the grievor to a reduction to a 13-day suspension.

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

The arbitrator ordered the employer to reduce the discipline to 13 days and compensate the grievor for two days of lost wages.

The parties reached an agreement regarding the disclosure and production of documents in relation to eight grievances.

The Arbitrator issued a consent order setting out timelines for the union to provide particulars and for both parties to produce arguably relevant documents.

The order included specific conditions for the disclosure, handling, and eventual destruction of the grievor's medical records to maintain confidentiality.

The grievor failed to attend the scheduled hearing on March 19, 2021.

By a previous order, she was required to provide reasons for her absence by April 2, 2021, failing which the matter would be deemed dismissed.

As no reasons were provided, the grievance was dismissed.

The grievor, a Recreation Officer, alleged the Employer breached the collective agreement by assigning him an incorrect anniversary date, thereby delaying his merit increases.

The grievor claimed his anniversary date should have been April 1, when he first transferred to the institution, rather than September 1.

The Arbitrator found that the grievor had initially transferred as a Correctional Officer and was subsequently placed on an administrative suspension, during which he was paid at the higher Correctional Officer rate.

Because he did not begin working in the lower-paid Recreation Officer position until his suspension was lifted in late August, the Employer correctly set his anniversary date to September 1 in accordance with its standard practice.

The grievance was dismissed.

In a grievance arbitration before the Grievance Settlement Board, the arbitrator issued a procedural order directing the employer to provide particulars of its position regarding the top-up of WSIB benefits.

The employer was also ordered to deliver any arguably relevant documents by a specified date to facilitate the next hearing.

The Union filed grievances on behalf of the grievor regarding the termination of her employment.

In a procedural order to facilitate the production process, the Arbitrator directed the Employer to disclose the investigation report and all arguably relevant documents related to the termination.

Following a finding that the Employer violated the collective agreement by failing to post and fill vacancies, the parties sought direction on the appropriate remedial framework.

The Union argued that the transfer of the grievors' duties to a lower classification constituted a layoff under Article 20.

The Employer argued that the pay administration provisions of Article 7.3 applied.

The Arbitrator held that Article 7.3 applied, as the work was not eliminated but rather reassessed and reclassified, and directed the parties to negotiate a remedy on that basis.

The grievor, a newly hired correctional officer, was terminated after the employer discovered he had falsely stated on a pre-employment security screening declaration that he had not been charged with any criminal offences.

In fact, he was facing off-duty criminal charges related to a family law dispute.

The arbitrator found that while the grievor's dishonesty provided just cause for discipline, termination was not a proportional response given his discipline-free record, the lack of a nexus between the off-duty charges and his employment, and his immediate truthfulness when confronted.

The termination was rescinded and replaced with a 10-day unpaid suspension.

The Employer raised preliminary objections regarding the sufficiency of the Union's amended particulars, the timeliness of certain allegations, and requested medical production.

On consent, the Arbitrator ordered the Union to provide full particulars regarding allegations of a toxic workplace and systemic racism, struck paragraphs relating to a 2015 WDHP complaint, and ordered the disclosure of the grievor's medical files from treating physicians.

The union filed a grievance claiming call-back pay for an employee who received and reviewed work-related emails and texts outside of her regular working hours.

The employer argued that the communications merely informed the employee of a meeting and did not require work to be performed.

The arbitrator found that the nature and timing of the communications, including texts to the employee's personal phone, created a reasonable expectation that she review them prior to her next shift.

The grievance was allowed in part, and the employee was awarded four hours of call-back pay at time and one-half.

The Union brought a preliminary motion to adjourn the grievance arbitration hearing to permit the Grievor to obtain an independent medical examination (IME) report from a psychiatrist or psychologist.

The Employer sought production of documents from the Crown and Police relating to the Grievor's alleged harassment of certain individuals.

The Arbitrator granted the adjournment, set a timeline for the IME report and related medical records, and directed the Union and Grievor to take reasonable steps to facilitate the production of the requested Crown and Police materials.

The Union waived its right to seek back wages for the period of the adjournment.

The union grieved a five-day suspension imposed on a Correctional Officer, alleging a breach of the collective agreement.

The employer maintained there was no breach but acknowledged a Minutes of Settlement between the Ministry and the union that provided for a reduction of five-day suspensions to four days with reimbursement for lost wages.

The arbitrator ordered the employer to reduce the discipline to four days and compensate the grievor accordingly.

The Employer brought a motion to strike numerous elements of the Union's Statement of Particulars regarding grievances alleging discrimination, harassment, and unjust discipline of a Youth Services Officer.

The Employer argued the particulars were insufficient, irrelevant, or failed to disclose a prima facie breach of the Collective Agreement.

The Arbitrator struck two paragraphs for irrelevance and found several others insufficiently particularized, but declined to strike them entirely, instead ordering the Union to provide further and better particulars to enable the Employer to know the case it has to meet.

The union filed grievances alleging the employer failed to prevent a poisoned work environment by not addressing harassing and bullying conduct and by reinstating the alleged harasser.

At the close of the union's case, the employer brought a non-suit motion seeking to dismiss the grievances.

The arbitrator applied the standard of a prima facie case and found that there was some evidence to support the claim.

The employer's non-suit motion was dismissed.

In a grievance arbitration, the employer requested production of the complainant's medical documentation.

The arbitrator ordered the union to produce the relevant medical records from the complainant's treating physician for a specified period.

The order included strict protocols for redaction of irrelevant information, secure electronic transmission, limited disclosure to specific employer representatives for instruction purposes only, and restrictions on the use and retention of the records during and after the proceedings.

The grievor, a correctional officer, filed a grievance alleging the employer breached the collective agreement by denying his claim for the cost of altering his uniform shirts.

The employer maintained that shirt alterations were not covered by the applicable policy.

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

The arbitrator denied the grievance.