OGSB 2021

The grievor, a correctional officer, received a one-day suspension for failing to submit a timely and accurate Use of Force Occurrence Report regarding an incident he was not present for.

The arbitrator found that while the grievor had promptly informed his supervisor he was not in the area, he later submitted an inaccurate report confusing the date with another incident.

The arbitrator concluded there was no just cause for a suspension but substituted a Letter of Reprimand for the inaccurate report.

The grievance was upheld in part.

The employer brought a motion to dismiss the union's claim that it acted in bad faith in meeting its obligations under Minutes of Settlement regarding the grievor's return to work and placement in a case worker position.

The union alleged the employer failed to properly integrate the grievor and set him up for failure.

The arbitrator found that the union's particulars, even if accepted as true, did not support a prima facie case of bad faith, as they did not show deliberate actions designed to undermine the grievor's success.

The employer's motion to dismiss the bad faith claim was granted.

The grievor, a Correctional Officer, grieved a three-day suspension.

The parties entered into Minutes of Settlement agreeing to reduce three-day suspensions to two days with reimbursement for lost wages.

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

The employer brought a motion arguing that the union was estopped from asserting its rights under article 31A.2.3 of the collective agreement, which governed when fixed-term employees in corrections progress through the salary grid.

The employer had a long-standing practice since 1992 of applying merit increases on the first day of the month following the completion of the required hours, rather than immediately upon completion.

The arbitrator found that the employer's policy was clear and consistently applied, and that the union had constructive knowledge of the practice.

The arbitrator concluded that all elements of estoppel were established, including detrimental reliance in the form of a lost opportunity to bargain, and held that the union was estopped from asserting its strict rights under the collective agreement.

The union filed a complaint alleging that the employer failed to comply with a memorandum of settlement by not providing the grievor with agreed-upon training courses and meaningful job shadowing opportunities.

The arbitrator found that the employer did not prevent the grievor from taking the courses and that the job shadowing provided met the obligations under the settlement.

The complaint was dismissed.

The grievor, a correctional officer, grieved a fifteen-day suspension, alleging breaches of the collective agreement and the Human Rights Code.

The parties had previously entered into Minutes of Settlement agreeing to reduce fifteen-day suspensions to thirteen days.

The arbitrator ordered the employer to reduce the discipline to thirteen days and compensate the grievor for two days of lost wages, noting no evidence was submitted to support a breach of the Code.

The union sought an adjournment sine die and an indefinite extension for the provision of documents and particulars regarding two grievances (failure to accommodate and termination for excessive absenteeism).

The employer brought a motion to dismiss the grievances due to the grievor's repeated failure to comply with Board orders to produce medical documents and her failure to attend hearings.

The arbitrator found that the grievor's medical notes were inadequate to justify the delays and that the employer was suffering significant prejudice due to the passage of time.

The arbitrator denied the union's request for an adjournment sine die and granted the employer's motion to dismiss the grievances.

The grievor, a fixed-term Correctional Officer, took a one-year temporary assignment as a Probation Officer.

The Temporary Assignment Agreement (TAA) stipulated that upon return to his home position, he would be paid at the salary he would have attained had the assignment not occurred.

Upon his return, the Employer reverted his wage rate to the minimum level for his home position, arguing that as a fixed-term employee, he was not eligible for a TAA under its policies.

The Arbitrator upheld the grievance, finding that the Employer's managers had executed the TAA and the Employer was bound by it.

The Employer was directed to compensate the grievor for lost wages and benefits.

The Union filed grievances alleging the Employer failed to reasonably accommodate a Correctional Officer with asthma and sensitivity to cigarette smoke, and breached a prior agreement regarding his General Duty Officer (GDO) assignments.

The Arbitrator found that while the Employer's enforcement of the smoking policy did not amount to a failure to accommodate during the relevant period due to a lack of actual exposures, the Employer did breach the GDO Agreement and the Human Rights Code by assigning the grievor fewer and a more limited range of duties compared to other GDOs.

The Employer's discriminatory treatment caused the grievor significant psychological harm, including PTSD.

The Arbitrator awarded $3,000 for breach of the agreement, $25,000 in general damages, and $20,000 for mental anguish.

The Union filed a policy grievance alleging the Employer violated the collective agreement and various Memoranda of Agreement regarding the rollover of fixed-term correctional officers to classified service at the Kenora Jail.

The dispute centered on whether officers who accepted temporary transfers to the Kenora Jail and later transferred permanently were immediately eligible for rollover, or if they had to wait one year from the date of their permanent transfer.

The Arbitrator held that the overarching October 16, 2018 MOA governed, meaning a fixed-term correctional officer must be employed at the specific institution for a minimum of one year before becoming eligible for a rollover expression of interest.

The grievance was granted.

The Union sought retroactive compensation for registered nurses who were allegedly required to be available during unpaid breaks.

Following a prior order to provide particulars, including a list of specific shifts where the grievors worked during unpaid breaks without compensation, the Union failed to provide the required details despite receiving the requested sign-in sheets from the Employer.

The Employer brought a motion to dismiss the grievance for failure to provide sufficient particulars.

The Arbitrator granted the motion and dismissed the grievance, noting that without specific details of the dates and times the grievors worked during unpaid breaks, there were insufficient particulars to determine any compensatory damages.

The grievor, a full-time Warehouse Worker and Union Steward, requested Union leave to attend a pre-bargaining conference.

The Employer charged the hours he was scheduled to work during his leave for the purposes of overtime equalization.

The Union grieved, arguing this was improper.

The Arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that the collective agreement's overtime equalization provision explicitly states hours will be charged when an employee is 'absent due to any reason', which includes Union leave.

The employer brought a motion to dismiss a grievance regarding a five-day suspension as untimely.

The grievance was referred to arbitration 18 months after the deadline.

The union requested an extension of time limits under the collective agreement and s. 48(16) of the Ontario Labour Relations Act.

The arbitrator declined to exercise discretion to extend the time limits, finding the 18-month delay to be extreme and the reasons for the delay to be weak, as the grievor was familiar with the grievance process and had no valid reason for the delay after initial settlement discussions ended.

The grievance was dismissed.

The grievor failed to attend a scheduled video hearing for her grievance.

The arbitrator ordered the grievor to provide reasons for her absence to Union counsel by a specified date, failing which the grievance would be deemed dismissed.

If reasons are provided, the Employer will determine whether it is satisfied with them or seeks dismissal.

The Union filed grievances challenging the Employer's calculation of a 1.4% lump sum payment for employees on approved leaves of absence.

The Employer brought a preliminary motion arguing the Union failed to establish a prima facie case, asserting the collective agreement clearly excluded third-party payments (like EI or WSIB) from the calculation.

The Union argued the language included all payments for approved leaves and that excluding third-party payments created an adverse impact based on prohibited grounds under the Human Rights Code.

The Arbitrator dismissed the Employer's motion, finding the Union's Human Rights Code theory was reasonable and capable of supporting a violation if the particulars were proven true.

The union filed a grievance in 2001 alleging the employer incorrectly calculated the grievor's Continuous Service Date (CSD).

Because of this error, the grievor was incorrectly declared surplus and redeployed to a different facility further from his home in 2002.

The grievance languished for years before being addressed at the MERC Transition Committee.

The employer eventually conceded the CSD was incorrect but disputed the damages claimed ($125,852.23) and argued the union delayed the process and the grievor failed to mitigate his losses.

The arbitrator found the employer was responsible for the incorrect reassignment and awarded the grievor $10,000 in general damages for the significant disruption suffered.

Three Probation Officers filed grievances after the Employer denied their applications for the Transition Exit Initiative (TEI) prior to their retirements.

The Union argued the Employer's decision was arbitrary, discriminatory, and in bad faith, given the diminishing caseloads and the approval of other TEI requests before and after the grievors' applications.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievances, finding that the Employer retained broad discretion to determine when and whether to downsize the workforce, and that its cautious approach to staffing reductions was rational and not made in bad faith.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of an employee whose application for the Transition Exit Initiative (TEI) was denied by the employer.

The union argued the denial was arbitrary and violated the collective agreement.

The arbitrator found that the employer did not act arbitrarily, as there was no need for staffing reductions at the employee's specific office at the time of the application.

The grievance was dismissed.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued procedural orders ahead of a hearing.

The orders included the exclusion of witnesses, strict confidentiality and limited use of produced documents, and the provision of American Sign Language interpretation at the hearing.

The parties participated in a Med-Arb process to resolve outstanding overtime grievances at various institutions within the Ministry of the Solicitor General.

Following a hearing on December 10, 2020, the Arbitrator issued a bottom-line decision without reasons, as agreed by the parties.

Several grievances were upheld with specific hours of overtime awarded, while the majority were dismissed.