OGSB 2022

The union filed a grievance alleging the improper denial of a request for special and compassionate leave.

The matter proceeded through an expedited mediation-arbitration process.

The arbitrator found no breach of the collective agreement and dismissed the grievance without reasons, in accordance with the negotiated protocol.

During an expedited mediation/arbitration proceeding, the grievor abruptly left the video conference without explanation.

The arbitrator noted that a grievor must make reasonable efforts to participate in the adjudication of their grievance, and an unexplained departure could be viewed as abandonment.

The arbitrator ordered the grievor to attend the next scheduled session, failing which the grievance may be deemed withdrawn.

The union filed a policy grievance regarding the employer's mandatory vaccination and vaccination disclosure announcements.

The parties appeared before the arbitrator to set a litigation schedule.

The employer raised a preliminary issue regarding the timeliness of the referral to arbitration, which will be argued based on an agreed statement of facts.

The arbitrator also set deadlines for the production of documents and the exchange of particulars, and scheduled a further conference call to determine next steps.

The arbitrator issued case management directions for the hearing of four grievances referred under the Central Collective Agreement.

The directions established timelines for the exchange of document books and authorities, limited the hearing to one day, and set strict time limits for the examination and cross-examination of the two witnesses regarding a specific conversation.

The grievor, a fixed-term Recreation Officer, filed a grievance alleging the employer unfairly distributed hours of work to other fixed-term employees, resulting in a discrepancy of approximately 40 hours over 18 months compared to two colleagues hired on the same date.

The arbitrator found the union and grievor failed to provide evidence of when or how the discrepancy occurred or identify occasions when hours should have been offered to the grievor.

The arbitrator concluded the 40-hour difference over 18 months was not an extreme differential and dismissed the grievance, finding no breach of the employer's obligation to average hours of work.

The union grieved the handling of the grievor's application for enhanced benefits under the Transition Exit Initiative, alleging the grievor was bullied into accepting an exit date that was not mutually agreeable.

As a preliminary matter, the arbitrator was asked to determine whether the grievor and his manager had reached a pre-arranged, mutually agreeable exit date.

The arbitrator found that the manager had not agreed to the grievor's preferred exit date and that the grievor's belief to the contrary was mistaken.

The arbitrator concluded there was no pre-arranged agreement regarding the exit date and remitted the matter back to the parties.

The union requested a hearing regarding the implementation of a Memorandum of Settlement, alleging the employer failed to procure an independent third party to facilitate a workplace discussion within the agreed 60-day timeframe.

The arbitrator ordered the employer to advise the union of the successful bidder by a specified date and set expectations for the commencement of the facilitation process, remaining seized of any further implementation issues.

Three grievors applied for the Transition Exit Initiative (TEI) before retiring from the Ontario Public Service, but their requests were denied by the Employer.

The Union grieved the denials, arguing the Employer improperly exercised its discretion under Appendix 46 of the Collective Agreement.

The Arbitrator applied established principles from prior TEI decisions, confirming the Employer retains broad discretion to determine whether an employee's exit supports the transformation of the public service.

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

The union referred three grievances to arbitration before holding the mandatory Formal Resolution Stage (FRS) meetings required by the collective agreement.

The employer raised a preliminary objection, arguing the grievances were improperly advanced.

The arbitrator upheld the objection, finding that the union's refusal to participate in the FRS meetings did not confer the right to unilaterally bypass the grievance procedure.

The arbitrator concluded there was no jurisdiction to hear the grievances as they were improperly advanced.

The union grieved the employer's decision to pro-rate the grievor's annual merit increase after she returned to her bargaining unit position from an acting management assignment.

The employer argued that the merit increase should be pro-rated based on the time actually worked in the bargaining unit position during the previous 12 months.

The arbitrator held that the collective agreement language did not link the merit increase to performance and that the provisions governing return from temporary assignments required the grievor to be placed in the position she would have been in had she continuously occupied her home position.

The grievance was allowed.

The employer requested, with the agreement of the parties, to amend a previous order dated July 6, 2021, to reflect a change in union counsel.

The Grievance Settlement Board granted the request, amending the order to substitute the new union counsel for the former counsel, entitling the new counsel to receive copies of a report subject to the conditions of the original order.

The grievor, a Fixed Term Correctional Officer, alleged that the Employer improperly calculated his hours, which delayed his rollover to permanent classified status.

He claimed he should have been rolled over in March 2020 rather than August 2020.

The Arbitrator found that even with a recalculation of hours, the grievor did not have enough hours to qualify for the January 2020 Expression of Interest.

The grievance was dismissed.

The Employer requested an order requiring the Union to provide written particulars of the allegations advanced in the grievances, specifically the 'who, what, when, and where'.

The Arbitrator granted the request, directing the Union to set out what was alleged to have been done, when, where, by what means, and by whom, and to identify any individuals whose actions were attributed to an organization.

The Arbitrator emphasized that conclusory statements based on unparticularized allegations of fact are insufficient.

The employer raised preliminary objections to a grievance regarding whether certain duties performed by the grievor accrued compensating time off or overtime.

The employer argued the grievance was untimely and improperly filed as an individual grievance rather than a union grievance.

The arbitrator dismissed both motions, finding that the grievance was properly filed as an individual grievance because the grievor sought a remedy specific to his own timesheets.

The arbitrator also extended the time limits under section 48.16 of the Labour Relations Act, finding the delay was minimal and the grievance could be viewed as a continuing grievance.

The union filed a group grievance alleging that the employer failed to provide meal breaks and rest periods to employees at the Brantford Jail, in violation of the collective agreement and the Employment Standards Act.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the grievance was untimely, as the jail had closed at the end of 2017 and the grievance was not filed until February 15, 2018.

The arbitrator upheld the employer's objection, finding that the grievance lacked particulars regarding specific dates and was filed outside the time frames set out in the collective agreement.

The arbitrator also found no basis to exercise statutory discretion to extend the time limits.

The grievance was dismissed.

The Employer brought a motion arguing that some of the Union's particulars did not make out a prima facie case.

The grievances related to the negotiation of a new Compressed Work Week Agreement and alleged anti-union animus, health and safety violations, and reprisals.

The Arbitrator assumed the facts in the particulars to be true and concluded they were sufficient to substantiate the alleged violations.

The Employer's motion was dismissed without detailed reasons, in accordance with the Board's practice.

The grievor failed to attend the scheduled expedited mediation-arbitration session, having previously cancelled attendance at four prior hearings without providing extenuating circumstances.

The arbitrator found that the grievor had effectively refused to participate in the arbitration process and dismissed the grievance.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of an employee who was denied the opportunity to apply for a Logistics Operations Clerk position.

Under the collective agreement, logistics employees can only apply for positions for the purpose of promotion or demotion, not for a transfer.

The union argued the move was a promotion because the new position involved more weekly hours, resulting in a higher annual salary.

The employer argued it was a transfer because both positions had the same maximum hourly rate.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that the term 'salary rate' in the collective agreement refers to the hourly rate, not the annual salary.

Since both positions had the identical maximum hourly rate, the assignment would be a transfer, making the employee ineligible to apply.

The parties engaged in a Med/Arb process to resolve outstanding overtime grievances at various institutions.

Following a hearing on January 18, 2022, the arbitrator issued a bottom-line decision resolving multiple individual grievances, upholding some with specific overtime hour awards and dismissing others, as detailed in the attached appendix.

The grievor, a permanent employee, was granted an unpaid educational leave of absence to pursue a Master's degree and subsequently a PhD.

After multiple extensions spanning over seven years, the Employer denied her request for a further one-year extension, citing the detrimental impact her prolonged absence was having on the workplace, including costs and morale issues related to backfilling her position with fixed-term employees.

The grievor was directed to return to work but failed to do so.

The Employer subsequently declared that she had abandoned her position and terminated her employment pursuant to section 42 of the Public Service of Ontario Act.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievances, finding that the Employer's decision to deny the extension was a reasonable exercise of managerial discretion made in good faith, and that the criteria for job abandonment under the Act were met.