OGSB 2022

The Employer requested an order directing the Union to provide additional particulars regarding a grievance alleging that a manager yelled at and made non-consensual physical contact with the grievor.

The Arbitrator denied the request, finding that the particulars already provided by the Union were sufficiently detailed and contextual to enable the Employer to understand the allegations and prepare its defence.

The Arbitrator noted that the finer points of the allegations properly belong in the hearing process.

The grievor, a Records Clerk, filled a temporary Rehabilitation Officer 2 position for over 18 months.

She grieved the Employer's decision to deny her a permanent position and instead hold a job competition, in which she was unsuccessful.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that under Article 8.6.3 of the collective agreement, the Employer has the discretion, but not the obligation, to assign an employee to a permanent position after 18 months in a temporary assignment.

The Union filed grievances on behalf of 29 employees who were denied enhanced benefits under the Transition Exit Initiative (TEI) before retiring from the Ontario Public Service.

The Arbitrator applied principles established in earlier cases, confirming that the Employer has broad discretion to determine whether granting a TEI request supports the transformation of the public service.

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

In a policy grievance challenging the employer's absolute prohibition on off-duty cannabis use for safety-sensitive positions, the union sought an order limiting the employer's evidence due to an alleged failure to provide full particulars.

The arbitrator declined to make an order limiting evidence at this stage, noting the union could object at the hearing.

The arbitrator directed the employer to provide written submissions on why it should not be ordered to file its expert report before the union.

The arbitrator also ordered the employer to produce drafts of the impugned policy provisions, finding them arguably relevant to the policy's reasonableness, subject to any claim of solicitor-client privilege.

The union filed two grievances alleging that the employer failed to offer the grievor overtime on several dates.

At the time, the grievor had recently returned to work and was being accommodated for medical restrictions.

The arbitrator found that the grievor could have worked some of the overtime that was assigned to others.

The grievance was upheld in part, and the employer was directed to pay the grievor 16 hours at straight time.

The grievor, a Correctional Officer, received a one-day suspension for allegedly dropping an inmate's meal on the floor and failing to report similar conduct by others.

The Employer rescinded the second allegation.

Video evidence confirmed the grievor casually dropped the meal, warranting discipline.

However, given the rescission of the second allegation and the lack of apparent malice, the Arbitrator reduced the penalty to a Letter of Reprimand and ordered the Employer to compensate the grievor for the lost day's pay.

The grievance pertains to a written letter of reprimand.

The grievor also received a subsequent 1-day suspension, which is the subject of another grievance.

The parties agreed that if the suspension grievance is referred to arbitration, it will be consolidated with the instant grievance.

The arbitrator encouraged the parties to consider waiving the Step 2 meeting for the suspension grievance and to canvass other outstanding grievances for potential consolidation.

The hearing will continue on May 10, 2023.

The grievor, a classified Correctional Officer, filed an individual grievance alleging that the Employer failed to post quarterly hours for Fixed Term (FXT) employees as required by Appendix COR8 of the collective agreement.

The Employer acknowledged its obligation to post the hours but argued the grievor lacked standing because he was not an FXT employee and was not personally affected by the alleged failure.

The Arbitrator agreed and dismissed the grievance, finding that the grievor could not bring an individual grievance or seek the requested remedies for an issue that did not personally affect him.

The parties participated in an expedited mediation-arbitration process regarding a grievance over a letter of reprimand issued to the grievor for lack of productivity.

The arbitrator directed the employer to remove the letter of reprimand from the grievor's file on April 1, 2023, provided no further discipline is received.

The grievor was also permitted to apply for competitions in the interim.

In a grievance arbitration, the Grievance Settlement Board issued a procedural order requiring the union to produce all medical documentation it intends to rely on and any amended statement of particulars by specified deadlines.

The order stipulated that failure to meet the deadlines would permit the employer to proceed with its preliminary motions, and the union would be barred from providing further medical documentation or amended particulars absent extraordinary circumstances.

The employer sought particulars regarding a union grievance alleging violations of overtime equalization.

The arbitrator directed the union to provide complete particulars of its claims, including the identities of the grieving employees, the specific dates and shifts grieved, the manner of the alleged violation, and the number of hours allegedly owed, by December 20, 2022.

The Employer requested an order directing the Union to deliver particulars concerning the allegations in a 2019 grievance.

The parties had previously agreed during mediation that the Union would provide particulars by July 1, 2022, but they were not provided.

The Arbitrator ordered the Union to provide comprehensive particulars by September 16, 2022, failing which the grievance may be dismissed upon motion by the Employer.

The Employer brought a motion to dismiss several of the 26 grievances filed by the Union on behalf of the grievor.

The Employer argued that the grievances should be dismissed on various preliminary grounds, including timeliness, failure to disclose a prima facie case, mootness, and prior settlement.

The Arbitrator reviewed each grievance individually, striking certain untimely or insufficient particulars, dismissing several grievances entirely for failing to establish a prima facie case, and allowing others to proceed where the particulars sufficiently alleged harassment, discrimination, or a failure to accommodate.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued a consent order regarding the disclosure of the grievor's medical documents.

The order established conditions for the release of the documents to the employer's counsel, including that they be maintained as confidential, not disclosed to non-participants, and used solely for the purposes of the grievance proceeding.

The grievor failed to attend the scheduled arbitration hearing, potentially due to a family medical emergency.

The Employer consented to an adjournment on the condition that the grievor provide a suitable written explanation for her absence.

The Arbitrator ordered the grievor to provide this explanation within two weeks and cautioned that failure to do so could result in the grievance being dismissed.

The Union was also ordered to provide full particulars of the grievance at least 60 days prior to the next hearing date.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to strike paragraphs of the union's particulars that pre-dated a 2015 grievance filed by the grievor.

The 2015 grievance, which involved family status accommodation and lost overtime, had been settled with a comprehensive release.

The arbitrator held that the settlement and release precluded the union from relying on facts relating to family status accommodation that occurred prior to the 2015 grievance.

However, particulars relating to training issues, which were not covered by the release, and events occurring after the 2015 grievance were permitted to remain.

The motion was granted in part.

In a grievance arbitration, the arbitrator issued a procedural order regarding the production of documents.

The employer was ordered to produce a complete copy of the grievor's Health & Wellness file to the union by a specified date.

Subsequently, the union was ordered to produce all arguably relevant portions of that file to employer counsel.

The Association filed a grievance on behalf of an employee who was screened out of a job competition.

The Arbitrator found the Employer violated the Collective Agreement by considering factors outside the selection criteria during the screening process, but declined to order a rerun of the competition.

During the arbitration, it was discovered that the Employer's hiring manager had created a false score sheet after the fact and presented it as having been created contemporaneously.

The Arbitrator found this conduct violated the Collective Agreement's disclosure requirements and the duty of honest performance, awarding the grievor $2,000 in general damages and $5,000 in punitive damages.

During a mediation-arbitration, the Employer requested particulars of harassment allegations made by the grievors against their manager.

The Union consented to providing particulars but requested until September 30, 2022, due to counsel's scheduled vacation, while the Employer sought them by August 14, 2022, to facilitate the manager's return to the workplace.

The Arbitrator ordered the Union to provide the particulars by September 16, 2022, balancing the need for timely information with counsel's vacation schedule.

The grievor failed to attend the scheduled hearing for his termination grievance and did not contact union counsel prior to the hearing.

The employer moved to dismiss the grievance or, in the alternative, to allow a short window for the grievor to explain his absence.

The arbitrator ordered the grievor to contact union counsel forthwith to explain his non-attendance and provide supporting documentation.

If the grievor fails to respond by the specified deadline, the grievance will be dismissed.

If an explanation is provided, the employer may review it and either agree to reschedule or renew its motion to dismiss.