OGSB 2023

The employer brought a preliminary motion challenging the arbitrator's jurisdiction to hear a grievance regarding the effective date of a collective agreement.

The employer argued that the Treasury Board Secretariat's statutory authority to ratify Crown agency collective agreements was outside the arbitrator's jurisdiction.

The arbitrator dismissed the motion, finding that the core dispute concerned the interpretation of the phrase 'date of ratification' within the collective agreement, which falls squarely within an arbitrator's exclusive jurisdiction under section 48(1) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The grievor, a Youth Services Officer, filed a grievance claiming entitlement to call back pay after receiving a telephone call from a manager outside of his scheduled working hours.

The manager called to inform the grievor that his accommodation request had been approved.

The union argued the call constituted a call back to work under the collective agreement.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that the call was merely to inform the grievor of the accommodation approval and did not involve the performance of work-related tasks.

A correctional officer filed a grievance alleging the employer breached the collective agreement, the Occupational Health and Safety Act, and the Mandatory Blood Testing Act by failing to forward completed forms to the public health unit within seven days of an incident where he was exposed to an inmate's bodily fluids.

The employer argued that its duty was fulfilled by providing the forms to the officer immediately, and that the Act places the responsibility of filing the forms on the affected officer.

The arbitrator found no breach of the grievor's rights and dismissed the grievance without written reasons, as requested by the parties.

The employer brought a motion to dismiss a grievance alleging failure to take reasonable precautions regarding Covid-19 safety for lack of a prima facie case.

The union brought a motion to consolidate a third grievance regarding improper pay with two already consolidated grievances.

The Arbitrator dismissed the employer's motion, finding the union's particulars regarding differential treatment in PCR testing and close contact protocols sufficient to proceed to a hearing.

The Arbitrator allowed the union's motion to consolidate, finding that the pay grievance arose out of the same series of incidents as the accommodation grievance and should be heard together for efficiency.

In a grievance arbitration under the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act, the employer advised it had not received fulsome particulars and production from the union.

The arbitrator ordered the union to provide particulars, production, and any medical documentation by April 2, 2024, and to request production from the employer.

The employer was ordered to provide full production by May 3, 2024, and the union to provide the grievor's will-say statement by June 3, 2024.

The scheduled hearing date was adjourned.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of a cook who received a three-day suspension for allegedly putting pineapple on a special diet pizza for a youth with a severe allergy.

The employer relied on a brief occurrence report written by the grievor, who was unsophisticated and wrote it without knowing the full details of the incident.

The arbitrator found that another employee had prepared the special diet pizzas and that the grievor had only worked on regular pizzas.

The arbitrator concluded the employer failed to prove just cause on a balance of probabilities, upheld the grievance, and ordered the suspension removed from the grievor's record with full compensation.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of the grievor regarding an unsuccessful application for a permanent full-time position.

The parties reached a settlement agreement in principle, which included a wage increase.

The grievor subsequently negotiated a higher wage rate directly with the employer but then refused to sign the modified Minutes of Settlement.

The employer sought to enforce the agreement with the higher wage rate.

The arbitrator found that a binding agreement was reached and directed its implementation, including the employer's subsequent commitment to the further wage increase.

In a grievance arbitration concerning the termination of a correctional officer, the parties requested an order to ensure readiness for the next hearing date after unsuccessful mediation efforts.

The Arbitrator issued a production order directing the Union to provide particulars by January 15, 2024, and both parties to exchange any outstanding production by January 30, 2024.

The grievor filed a grievance claiming she was short-paid for sick days in January 2023.

Shortly after filing, the employer corrected the payroll error and paid the outstanding amount.

The grievor continued to seek damages equivalent to 12 hours of regular pay for the inconvenience caused by the delay.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that the employer's local payroll had promptly submitted the correct information and the delay was caused by a mistake at Ontario Shared Services, which did not warrant an award of damages.

In a remedial claim arising from a prior decision, the Grievance Settlement Board ordered the employer to pay a meal allowance expense of $32.60 to each of the 46 grievors.

The decision was issued on a without prejudice and precedent basis and without reasons, pursuant to Article 22.16 of the Collective Agreement.

The union grieved a three-day suspension imposed on a correctional officer for failing to wear safety goggles on three separate occasions during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The employer discovered the infractions incidentally while reviewing CCTV footage for contact tracing purposes.

The arbitrator held that the use of CCTV for contact tracing was a legitimate safety measure under the collective agreement, and that incidental observations of misconduct could be used for discipline.

The arbitrator rejected arguments that the employer condoned the behaviour or failed to apply progressive discipline, finding that the health and safety risks justified the penalty.

The grievance was dismissed.

The union filed grievances challenging the employer's process for posting and filling a Product Consultant position, alleging the successful candidate did not meet the minimum qualifications.

The employer conceded that the process violated the collective agreement and did not resist the usual remedy of rerunning the competition.

However, at the grievors' request, the arbitrator issued a declaration that the employer violated the collective agreement but declined to order the competition to be rerun.

The parties agreed on consent to an order regarding the disclosure of the grievor's medical file.

The Union and the Grievor are required to produce all arguably relevant medical records, subject to strict confidentiality conditions limiting disclosure to Employer counsel, specific instructing clients, and necessary witnesses, solely for the purpose of the arbitration.

The Union requested pre-hearing disclosure of documents relating to individual exceptions to the Employer's mandatory vaccination policy requested under the grounds of creed or disability.

The parties agreed the documents were arguably relevant but contained private and sensitive information.

The arbitrator exercised authority under section 48(1) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 to order the Employer to disclose the requested documents, subject to strict confidentiality conditions restricting their use and dissemination.

The parties reconvened to address monetary compensation issues arising from a previous arbitration award that upheld three grievances, including one from the Sudbury Jail.

Despite attempts over three years to identify individual claims for compensation from the Sudbury Jail, no such claims were found.

To ensure finality, the arbitrator dismissed the Sudbury Jail grievance.

The union filed a policy grievance challenging the employer's decision to contract out work at a rail maintenance facility.

The employer brought a preliminary motion arguing that the union improperly expanded the scope of the grievance, that the allegations were premature, and that allegations regarding layoffs and terminations could not be pursued as a policy grievance under Article 4.5 of the collective agreement.

The arbitrator held that Article 4.5 precluded the union from pursuing the layoff and termination allegations as a policy grievance because they directly affected identifiable employees who could file individual grievances.

However, the arbitrator dismissed the employer's arguments regarding the scope of the grievance and prematurity, finding that the union's allegations about 'contracting in' and the timing of the announcement were inherent to the original grievance and that the matter was ripe for adjudication.

The Union filed multiple grievances alleging that the Employer violated the collective agreement by failing to compensate employees for lost overtime and holiday pay opportunities while they were required to self-isolate due to COVID-19.

The Union also claimed entitlement to pandemic-related monetary payments, including Short-Term Sickness Plan top-ups and Coronavirus Leave Paid.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievances, finding no clear language in the collective agreement requiring payment for overtime or holiday premiums when employees could not attend work.

The Board also held it lacked jurisdiction to review the Employer's administration of the Coronavirus Leave Paid program, as it was established outside the collective agreement.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of the grievor.

A video conference hearing was scheduled, but the grievor failed to attend or provide reasons for her absence, despite being contacted by the union representative.

The arbitrator adjourned the hearing and directed the grievor to provide reasons for her non-attendance within 30 days, failing which the grievance may be dismissed without further notice.

The employer brought a motion to dismiss eight grievances alleging racial and family status discrimination and anti-union animus, arguing the particulars failed to establish a prima facie case.

The arbitrator applied the test for a prima facie case of discrimination, finding that relatively little affirmative evidence is required at this stage.

The arbitrator concluded that the particulars for seven of the grievances were capable of supporting the alleged violations if proven true.

One grievance relating to general workload issues was dismissed as it did not fit the union's theory of the case.

The employer's alternative motion to strike certain particulars was dismissed as premature.

During a hearing on an employer's preliminary motion to dismiss 31 consolidated grievances, the parties agreed to consolidate five additional newly discovered grievances.

The employer objected to the union providing particulars for the new grievances, arguing it was too late and prejudicial as the employer had already commenced its submissions on the motion.

The Arbitrator held that the union was entitled to provide particulars for the new grievances, as the employer's prior submissions related only to the original grievances and the employer would not be prejudiced.

The union was ordered to provide the particulars by a specified date.