OGSB 2022

The parties consented to an order requiring mutual disclosure of all materials regarding the grievor's Workers Safety and Insurance Board files.

The arbitrator ordered the grievor to disclose all materials in her possession, including appeals or intents to object, and ordered the employer to disclose its entire WSIB file regarding the grievor.

The union requested to consolidate a grievance dated November 9, 2021, with an earlier grievance filed by the same grievor on May 14, 2019.

The 2019 grievance alleged a toxic work environment, while the 2021 grievance focused on the employer's failure to accommodate the grievor's driving anxiety.

The employer opposed the consolidation.

The Grievance Settlement Board denied the request, finding that the grievances were separated by over two years, involved different issues, and pertained to different managers and accommodation specialists, meaning consolidation would not result in a more efficient use of resources.

The Union filed a grievance alleging the Employer violated the collective agreement by failing to make pension and benefit contributions for the grievor during an approved leave of absence.

The Arbitrator ordered the Employer to make the grievor whole in respect of pension contributions for the period in question, either directly or by providing funds to buy back pensionable service.

The Employer was also ordered to reimburse the grievor for eligible benefit expenses incurred during the leave upon provision of receipts.

The grievor, an Application Analyst/Developer, filed six grievances alleging workplace harassment, discrimination based on age, race, and disability, and unjust termination.

The employer terminated her for non-culpable inability to perform the core duties of her position, specifically coding.

The arbitrator dismissed the harassment and discrimination grievances, finding that the managers' actions were legitimate exercises of management rights and that the grievor's inability to code was not related to a medical condition.

However, the arbitrator upheld the termination grievance in part, finding that the employer failed to take reasonable steps to move the grievor into other work within her qualifications.

Due to the complete breakdown of the employment relationship and the grievor's lack of insight into her performance deficiencies, the arbitrator awarded damages in lieu of reinstatement, ordering the employer to pay 1.5 years of salary and $45,000 in damages.

The union filed multiple grievances relating to a pilot project for the E-Roster scheduling system at the Brantford Jail, alleging short staffing, failure to backfill, and breaches of overtime and escort protocols.

The employer acknowledged issues with the system's introduction that may have violated the collective agreement.

However, because the jail permanently closed at the end of 2017 and given the passage of time, the arbitrator concluded that issuing declaratory relief would serve no labour relations purpose.

The grievances were dismissed.

The union filed a grievance alleging that the grievor was improperly considered not to have re-qualified for Short Term Sickness Plan (STSP) benefits, resulting in a denial of benefits.

The matter proceeded through an expedited mediation-arbitration process.

The arbitrator allowed the grievance without reasons, in accordance with the negotiated protocol, and remained seized of the matter regarding the amount owing to the grievor.

The Union grieved that the Grievor's Manager engaged in a course of conduct including micromanaging, bullying, harassment, and exclusion, resulting in discrimination on the basis of disability.

The Grievor had a workplace accommodation requiring her to work at an alternative location, physically isolated from her colleagues.

The Arbitrator found that the Manager applied a different standard to the Grievor based on her accommodation, subjected her to adverse treatment, and failed to include her in workplace events.

The Employer was found to have violated Article 3 of the Collective Agreement and was ordered to pay $5,000 in general damages for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

The employer brought a motion to dismiss the grievor's termination grievance due to her failure to attend scheduled hearings and her lack of communication with the union.

The grievor had been terminated for job abandonment after failing to return to work or provide medical information.

Despite numerous attempts by the union to contact her and a previous board order directing her to explain her non-attendance, the grievor did not respond or appear.

The arbitrator found that the grievor's conduct demonstrated a lack of interest in pursuing the grievance and that further delay would prejudice the employer.

The motion was granted and the grievance was dismissed.

The union alleged the employer breached a 2003 settlement agreement requiring weekly courier delivery of job postings to the grievor.

The arbitrator found the employer had a 96.5% to 99.5% compliance rate over 19 years, delivering approximately 1,000 packages.

The grievor, who has been on long-term disability for nearly 20 years, failed to identify any jobs she would have applied for or any harm suffered from the alleged delivery failures.

The arbitrator dismissed the claims, finding no labour relations purpose in allowing the complaint to proceed, and imposed strict pleading requirements for any future complaints.

Six grievors in the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry filed grievances after their applications for the Transition Exit Initiative (TEI) were denied by the Employer prior to their retirement.

The arbitrator applied established principles regarding the Employer's broad discretion under Appendix 46 of the Collective Agreement to determine whether granting a TEI request supports the transformation of the Ontario Public Service.

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

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the Employer did not have just cause to terminate the Grievor.

The parties agreed on the amount of lost wages, which the Employer was ordered to pay.

The Arbitrator remained seized of any disputes regarding additional compensation or issues arising from reinstatement, and ordered the Union and Grievor to make a request for production of documents related to the authorship of investigation reports.

The union filed a grievance alleging the employer failed to accommodate the grievor when he was able to return to work.

To facilitate the efficient litigation of the grievance, the arbitrator issued a procedural order directing the union to produce relevant medical, insurance, and employment records, as well as particulars regarding the requested accommodations and the grievor's efforts to obtain training.

The employer was also directed to produce relevant documents.

The parties reserved their rights regarding the scope of the grievance as it relates to the grievor's fitness for duty as a bus driver given his prescribed cannabis usage.

The union brought a motion for the production of documents to verify the employer's calculation of premium payments owed to the grievor pursuant to a 2013 remedial order and a 2015 settlement.

The employer argued that the 2015 settlement resolved the methodology for calculating premium pay and opposed producing documents from before 2015 or relating to certain premiums.

The arbitrator ordered the employer to produce the requested documents from 2011 onwards, finding them arguably relevant to the union's claim that the employer breached the settlement and remedial order.

The arbitrator declined to declare a breach of the settlement or appoint an auditor at this preliminary stage.

The grievor, a classified Correctional Officer, was on a temporary assignment as a Probation and Parole Officer.

After her temporary assignment ended, she was recalled to her home position at a detention centre.

She provided medical documentation stating she could not work as a Correctional Officer or in a correctional environment due to a permanent disability.

The employer insisted she return to her home position and did not explore other accommodation options, including her previous Probation and Parole Officer role.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the employer failed to comply with its procedural and substantive duties to accommodate the grievor under the Human Rights Code.

The Board also found that the employer harassed and bullied the grievor during a return-to-work meeting by aggressively pressuring her to return to her home position despite clear medical restrictions.

Grievances relating to her time on temporary assignment were dismissed.

The Union sought damages following a merits decision that found the Employer breached the collective agreement and the Human Rights Code by failing to investigate a poisoned work environment and harassment involving racial and sexual discrimination.

The Employer argued the Grievance Settlement Board lacked jurisdiction to award mental distress damages, asserting such claims were barred by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act.

The Arbitrator rejected this argument, finding the claims were for human rights and collective agreement breaches, not WSIA-compensable injuries.

The Arbitrator awarded the grievor $35,000 in general damages for the Employer's systemic failure to maintain a safe and respectful workplace.

During a grievance arbitration regarding a five-day suspension, the Union brought an evidentiary motion seeking to test the Employer's compliance with a prior production order for emails and text messages.

The Employer initially claimed the emails could not be found, but later produced some after renewed efforts.

The Arbitrator ordered the Employer to call viva voce evidence detailing its search efforts before the cross-examination of its witness could commence, emphasizing the Board's duty to oversee compliance with its orders.

The Association (AMAPCEO) filed disputes asserting that Sergeants and Youth Service Managers employed in correctional institutions were covered by its collective agreement.

The Employer and the intervening union (OPSEU) argued that AMAPCEO had relinquished any such bargaining rights in 2008 and 2009 agreements, and that OPSEU held 'wall-to-wall' bargaining rights for all employees at correctional facilities.

The Arbitrator found that AMAPCEO had indeed relinquished its rights regarding these positions through a 2008 Memorandum of Agreement and subsequent collective agreement, and that any representation rights for these employees, to the extent they do not exercise managerial functions, are held by OPSEU.