OGSB 2022

The Union filed policy and individual grievances challenging the Employer's amended Fitness for Duty Policy, which prohibited all recreational use of cannabis for employees in safety-sensitive positions and required disclosure of medical cannabis prescriptions.

In an interim decision, the arbitrator addressed the order of proceeding and production of medical records.

The arbitrator directed the Union to proceed first, as it bore the legal onus to establish its allegations of unreasonableness and discrimination, and there was no compelling reason to depart from the usual order.

Regarding production, the arbitrator ordered third-party health providers to disclose the grievors' files to Union counsel first to vet for arguably relevant material relating to cannabis use, with the Employer to bear the costs of disclosure from its occupational health management providers.

The union filed a grievance alleging the grievor was improperly screened out and denied an interview for a permanent Trial Coordinator position.

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

The arbitrator found the screening process was flawed and ordered the employer to rerun the job competition, giving primary consideration to candidates' qualifications as of March 2017.

In a supplementary decision following a January 2021 arbitration award, the Grievance Settlement Board addressed the grievor's claim that double CPP and EI deductions were made from his 2013 disability benefits.

Based on the employer's submissions, the Board found that the employer was required to deduct EI and CPP from the 2021 retroactive payments, and that no double deduction occurred for 2013.

The Board noted the grievor could seek special tax treatment from the CRA for the retroactive lump-sum payment.

The matter was concluded.

The Union failed to meet a deadline to provide revised particulars due to difficulties obtaining clear information from the grievor.

The Employer expressed concern about ongoing liability and indicated it would seek to limit liability or move to dismiss the case if particulars were not provided.

The Arbitrator extended the deadline for the Union to provide revised particulars and ordered the grievor to provide a medical note if medical reasons prevented compliance or participation.

The union grieved the employer's application of a 'reasonable and customary' limit to a claim for massage therapy benefits, which resulted in an $8.00 shortfall for the claimant.

The arbitrator held that the collective agreement's specific provisions regarding paramedical services superseded the legacy insurance plan's reasonable and customary limitations.

Consequently, the reasonable and customary limits did not apply to claims for massage services, and the grievance was allowed.

Three correctional officers filed grievances alleging the employer failed to take reasonable precautions for their safety after their personal information was inadvertently included in a Crown brief provided to an inmate's defence counsel.

The union argued the employer failed to adequately investigate the breach or communicate critical information to the grievors, causing them significant psychological distress.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievances, finding the employer acted reasonably and promptly by confirming the information had been removed from the disclosure, engaging a specialized law enforcement unit to investigate, and offering security support.

The arbitrator concluded the employer did not breach its health and safety obligations under the collective agreement or the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

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

The arbitrator reviewed 41 individual grievances during a session on June 23, 2022.

The decision sets out the disposition of each grievance in an attached schedule, with some grievances dismissed and others upheld with specific hours of overtime or straight time awarded.

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

The Arbitrator applied established principles regarding the Employer's broad discretion to approve or deny TEI requests based on whether an employee's exit supports the transformation of the public service.

Finding no improper exercise of discretion, bad faith, or discrimination, the Arbitrator dismissed the grievances.

Four grievors filed grievances after the Employer denied their requests to receive enhanced benefits under the Transition Exit Initiative (TEI) pursuant to Appendix 46 of the Collective Agreement.

The Arbitrator applied established principles from prior decisions, confirming that the Employer retains broad discretion to determine whether an employee's exit supports the transformation of the Ontario Public Service.

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

The Union filed grievances on behalf of two employees whose requests for the Transition Exit Initiative (TEI) were denied by the Employer before they retired.

The Union argued that the subsequent reclassification of one grievor's position and an error on the other grievor's Record of Employment demonstrated bad faith or an improper exercise of discretion.

The Arbitrator dismissed the grievances, finding that neither the subsequent reclassification of a position nor an erroneous statement in a Record of Employment established an improper exercise of the Employer's broad discretion to approve or deny TEI requests.

The Union filed grievances claiming entitlement to the Custodial Responsibility Allowance (CRA) for five Maintenance Mechanics.

The Arbitrator determined whether a prima facie case was established based on written submissions.

The Arbitrator found that the grievors' regular duties as Maintenance Mechanics did not involve directing inmates engaged in beneficial labour, and thus dismissed that portion of the grievances.

However, the Arbitrator found that a prima facie case was established for the periods when the grievors backfilled for grounds, cleaning, and laundry staff, as those duties involved supervising inmates.

The grievances were dismissed in part and referred back to the parties regarding the backfilling duties.

The Grievor, a correctional officer, was discharged for failing to notify the Employer that he had been criminally charged with failing to comply with a recognizance, and for failing to provide required information about his criminal charges in a timely manner.

The Grievor claimed he relied on the advice of his criminal counsel and that he thought he had provided sufficient information.

The Arbitrator found the Grievor's explanations disingenuous and unreliable, noting his repeated failure to comply with specific directions from the Employer to provide information.

The Arbitrator concluded the Employer established just cause for discharge and found no mitigating factors to warrant substituting a lesser penalty, dismissing the grievance.

The Employer brought a preliminary motion regarding the available remedies in a termination grievance of a correctional officer.

The grievor had pled guilty to assault and received a conditional discharge for an incident involving an inmate.

The Employer argued that under the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act, the criminal disposition constituted conclusive evidence of excessive use of force, limiting the arbitrator's jurisdiction to reinstate the grievor to a position outside the secure part of a facility.

The Union argued the assault charge did not necessarily equate to excessive force under the Act and raised mitigating medical factors.

The Arbitrator upheld the Employer's motion, finding the guilty plea and conditional discharge triggered the mandatory provisions of the Act, precluding relitigation of the excessive force allegations and limiting remedial jurisdiction.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued a production order requiring the Union to provide the Employer with arguably relevant medical and paramedical documents, Oncidium file documents, Health and Wellness file documents, supporting documents for Family Caregiver Leave, confirmation of compliance with the mandatory vaccination policy, and confirmation of any new restrictions or required accommodations by June 30, 2022.

The Union filed a grievance alleging the Employer failed to accommodate the grievor's medical inability to wear a mask.

In a pre-hearing conference, the Grievance Settlement Board ordered the Employer to produce the grievor's occupational health file to Union counsel.

The Board also ordered the Union to produce all relevant medical records, communications, and particulars regarding the grievor's claimed inability to wear a mask and the nature of the mask that allegedly addressed his medical needs.

During a hearing concerning the termination of two Correctional Officers, an issue arose regarding the production of an inmate's health care record.

The Arbitrator directed the Employer to produce the relevant features of the health care record to Union counsel, subject to conditions restricting its use and dissemination.

The Employer requested an order that any grievors who do not respond to the Union's request for information by July 6, 2022, will have their grievances dismissed.

The Union did not oppose the request.

The Grievance Settlement Board granted the order.

Three grievors applied for enhanced retirement benefits under the Transition Exit Initiative (TEI) prior to their retirement from the Ontario Public Service.

The Employer denied their applications, determining that their exits did not support the transformation of the OPS as their positions were still required.

The Union grieved, alleging an improper exercise of discretion.

The Arbitrator dismissed the grievances, finding that the Employer has broad discretion to determine whether an exit supports transformation, and the evidence did not establish that the Employer's decisions were unreasonable, arbitrary, or made in bad faith.

The parties consented to an order extending the deadline for the Union to provide particulars and documents to the Employer.

The Arbitrator ordered the Union to provide the materials by June 17, 2022, and the Employer to provide submissions on any preliminary issues by August 26, 2022.

The Union is precluded from raising new issues or providing further particulars beyond this date, subject to specific exceptions.

The Union filed grievances on behalf of a Medical Clerk and a Groundskeeper claiming entitlement to the Custodial Responsibility Allowance (CRA) under the collective agreement.

The arbitrator found that the Medical Clerk did not establish a prima facie case for the CRA, as she did not direct inmates engaged in beneficial labour for a major portion of her working time, nor was she required to lay charges for breaches of institutional regulations.

The Groundskeeper's grievance was referred back to the parties for further consideration in light of new information.