OGSB 2022

The grievor failed to attend the scheduled virtual grievance arbitration hearing.

Union counsel advised they could not proceed without the grievor, necessitating an adjournment.

The arbitrator ordered the grievor to provide reasons for his non-attendance by a specified date, failing which the grievance may be dismissed.

If reasons are provided, the employer may bring a motion to dismiss based on the failure to attend.

The arbitrator issued case management directions for three grievances (two individual, one group) referred under the Central Collective Agreement.

The directions set timelines for providing particulars, scheduling a one-day hearing, and limiting the scope and duration of oral evidence regarding whether other employees were permitted to conduct COVID-19 rapid tests at the workplace.

During a multi-day grievance arbitration held via videoconference, the grievor experienced repeated technical difficulties that prevented her from testifying.

The employer sought an order requiring the grievor to attend future hearing dates from a designated physical location with reliable internet.

The arbitrator granted the request, ordering the grievor to attend future scheduled hearing dates at one of two specified employer office locations where a private boardroom and internet connectivity would be provided.

At the first scheduled date of a grievance arbitration, the employer brought a motion to commence the hearing immediately.

The union opposed the motion, relying on the established practice at the Grievance Settlement Board to use the first date for mediation, case management, and preliminary issues before adjourning.

The arbitrator dismissed the employer's motion, finding that while the employer's desire for efficiency was justifiable, the established practice ought to prevail because the employer had not clearly put the union on notice in advance of its intention to move to commence the hearing.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to strike particulars and dismiss a grievance challenging a Personal Development Plan (PDP) completed by an Acting Supervisor.

The arbitrator dismissed the PDP grievance, finding that performance appraisals are not disciplinary and therefore not subject to arbitral review for fairness, and that the acting supervisor had the authority to conduct the appraisal.

The arbitrator also struck particulars alleging gender bias in a promotion, as promotions to managerial positions are outside the scope of the collective agreement and the allegations constituted an unwarranted expansion of the grievance.

In a separate harassment grievance, the arbitrator struck particulars relating to an independent medical examination as an expansion of the grievance, but permitted particulars relating to medical accommodation.

The parties requested a procedural order to consolidate several grievances and establish a schedule for the production of particulars and future hearings.

The Arbitrator issued a consent order consolidating three grievances, setting a deadline for the union to provide detailed particulars, and scheduling future dates to address unreferred grievances and preliminary issues.

The Union requested pre-hearing disclosure of an Investigation Report and related materials concerning allegations of misconduct by the grievor.

The Employer resisted, citing the sensitive and confidential nature of the documents involving current and former employees.

The Arbitrator exercised her authority under section 48(12) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 to order the Employer to produce the requested documents, subject to strict confidentiality conditions restricting their use, distribution, and retention to the arbitration preparation process.

The Employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss three individual grievances concerning the calculation of severance pay for casual employees.

The Employer argued that the Union was estopped from pursuing these grievances because it had previously withdrawn a policy grievance on the identical issue after receiving the Employer's particulars and productions, and had subsequently withdrawn bargaining proposals seeking the same benefit.

The Arbitrator agreed, finding that the withdrawal of the policy grievance in these circumstances, without stating it was 'without prejudice', constituted a representation that the Union accepted the Employer's interpretation of the collective agreement.

The motion was granted and the grievances were dismissed.

The Union brought a motion to hear three grievances together, while the Employer brought motions to dismiss one grievance for untimely referral and to strike certain particulars.

The grievances related to the Employer's alleged failure to accommodate the grievor's disability, denial of short-term sick pay, and subsequent disciplinary suspensions.

The Arbitrator granted the Union's motion to hear the grievances together, finding a sufficient factual and legal nexus.

The Arbitrator dismissed the Employer's motion regarding the untimely referral, exercising discretion to extend the time limit due to the grievor's innocent mistake and lack of prejudice.

The Arbitrator granted the Employer's motion to strike particulars relating to previously settled grievances, but refused to strike particulars regarding accommodation efforts, finding them relevant to establishing a pattern of conduct.

The grievor failed to attend the scheduled grievance arbitration hearing.

The employer moved to dismiss the grievance.

The arbitrator ordered the grievor to provide reasons and documentary evidence for his absence by a specified date, failing which the grievance would be deemed dismissed.

The employer was given a deadline to respond to any reasons provided.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of a warehouse worker who was not paid for a shift he missed.

The worker claimed he was denied entry due to COVID-19 screening protocols after his son had a fever, despite a negative test.

The employer maintained the worker called in to say he was taking his son for a test and would not be at work.

The arbitrator preferred the employer's version of events based on contemporaneous emails.

Because the worker was absent and had no remaining sick credits, the employer's decision not to pay him did not violate the collective agreement.

The grievance was dismissed.

The Union sought document production in a grievance arbitration.

On consent, the Arbitrator ordered the Employer to make its best efforts to provide all arguably relevant documents created between January 1, 2019, and January 25, 2022, relating to specific curriculum training, as well as emails and documents in the possession of a retired employee.

The parties agreed to a consent order adjourning two grievances filed by the grievor.

The employer consented to the adjournment on the condition that the overtime grievances be scheduled together and proceed through the mediation/arbitration procedure.

The employer reserved the right to bring preliminary objections, and the union agreed to provide particulars in advance of the new hearing date.

The grievor, a Correctional Officer, filed a grievance alleging that the employer breached the collective agreement and engaged in harassment and bullying during an Employee Attendance Support Program meeting by advising her that short-term sick benefits might not be approved without updated medical information.

The parties referred the grievance to mediation/arbitration.

The arbitrator found no evidence to support a breach of the collective agreement or other pertinent legislation or policies.

The grievance was denied.

The employer brought motions to dismiss a grievance alleging termination without just cause and discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, and disability.

The grievor, a Court Service Officer, had been terminated for job abandonment, subsequently reinstated, and then terminated again for abandonment without filing a new grievance.

The arbitrator found that the union's revised particulars did not establish a prima facie case of discrimination on any of the alleged grounds, as there was no evidence the employer knew or ought to have known of the grievor's mental health disability or psoriasis, nor was there evidence of differential treatment based on race or ethnicity.

Consequently, the arbitrator concluded that the grievance was moot because the primary remedy of reinstatement had already been provided and no live controversy remained.

The grievance was dismissed.

The grievor, a fixed-term Correctional Officer, filed grievances claiming kilometric rate reimbursement, meal allowances, and travel time after temporarily relocating to a different correctional centre during a COVID-19 outbreak at his home institution.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that under the parties' Memorandum of Agreement, employees who initiated their own temporary relocation were not entitled to expense reimbursements.

Because the grievor chose to relocate to a different facility rather than follow his work to the designated relocation site, he was not entitled to the claimed expenses.

Furthermore, he was provided a full shift of paid duty time to retrieve his personal belongings, consistent with the treatment of his colleagues.

The grievances were dismissed.

The grievor, a Correctional Officer, filed a grievance claiming he was wrongfully required to resign from his previous Regular Service OPS position to accept a fixed-term position, negatively affecting his Continuous Service Date.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, noting that the grievor had filed essentially the same grievance in 2019, which was dismissed in a 2020 decision.

The arbitrator found the issue had already been decided and filing another grievance would not change the outcome.

Two fixed-term Correctional Officers grieved the denial of their rollover to regular classified positions at the Thunder Bay Jail.

The grievors had temporarily transferred to the jail but did not formally transfer their fixed-term contracts until later.

Relying on a previous decision involving the Kenora Jail, the Arbitrator held that an employee must have formally and permanently transferred their contract to the institution at least one year before the Expression of Interest to be eligible for rollover.

Because the grievors had not met this requirement, the grievances were dismissed.

During a discharge grievance hearing for a correctional officer terminated for alleged excessive use of force against an inmate, the Employer sought to call an expert witness to provide opinion evidence on the officer's actions.

The Union objected, arguing the arbitrator was capable of assessing the evidence without expert assistance.

Applying the Mohan/White Burgess framework, the arbitrator qualified the witness as an expert in use of force and defensive tactics.

The expert was permitted to testify on whether the officer's actions complied with Ministry policy, but was restricted from providing an opinion on the ultimate issue of whether the force used was excessive, which remained a factual determination for the arbitrator.

The grievor, a Correctional Officer, was issued a written reprimand for insubordination after refusing direct orders to hand over cell keys and to leave a segregation unit.

The grievor claimed a work refusal under the Occupational Health and Safety Act due to safety concerns regarding an inmate.

The Arbitrator found the grievor's actions constituted insubordination and did not fall within the health and safety exception, as the grievor was not under imminent threat and the work refusal provisions did not apply due to s. 43(2)(c) of the Act.

The grievance was dismissed.