OGSB 2023

The Union filed grievances on behalf of three employees regarding the operation of the Transition Exit Initiative (TEI) under the collective agreement.

Two grievors alleged the Employer improperly denied their requests to exit under the TEI, while the third alleged their approved enhanced benefits were not paid within a reasonable time.

Applying established principles regarding the Employer's broad discretion to approve TEI requests, the Arbitrator found the Employer properly exercised its discretion in denying the two requests and that the payments to the third grievor were made within a reasonable period.

The grievances were dismissed.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued a consent order consolidating multiple grievances under a single lead file number (GSB No. 2020-0572) on the agreement of the parties.

The employer brought a motion to determine whether its jurisdictional objection (a Monk motion) regarding the Board's authority to award monetary remedies for a workplace assault should be heard as a preliminary issue.

The union argued the motion should be deferred until after the merits of the grievance were decided.

The Arbitrator held that, absent agreement between the parties, the timing of a Monk motion must be determined on a case-by-case basis considering efficiency and labour relations principles.

Finding no efficiency in hearing the motion preliminarily, the Arbitrator deferred the Monk motion to the end of the hearing.

The union filed grievances alleging the employer breached the collective agreement by creating a new 'correctional supervisor' position and directly assigning former sergeants to it without posting the vacancies.

The employer argued the assignments were reclassifications of excluded managerial staff into the bargaining unit.

The arbitrator found that the correctional supervisor role was a 'new regular position in the bargaining unit' under the collective agreement, triggering the mandatory job posting requirement.

The arbitrator upheld the grievances, finding the employer could not circumvent collective agreement rights by reclassifying excluded employees into the bargaining unit without a posting.

In advance of a discharge grievance hearing, the union requested the production of an investigation report and related materials.

The arbitrator ordered the employer to produce the investigation report, appendices, and non-privileged materials considered by the investigator.

The production was made subject to strict confidentiality conditions, including restrictions on copying, electronic distribution, and sharing with the grievor.

The employer brought a motion to enforce a settlement agreement regarding three grievances.

During mediation, the union made an offer to resolve the grievances and explicitly left it open.

The employer later accepted the offer and provided draft minutes of settlement.

The union advised that the grievor no longer agreed to the settlement.

The arbitrator found that the union's offer was left open and the employer's acceptance crystallized the agreement, creating a binding settlement from which the union could not withdraw.

The motion was granted and the agreed terms were ordered.

The parties consented to an order directing the employer to produce an investigation report and related materials to the union.

The arbitrator ordered the production subject to strict confidentiality conditions, including restrictions on copying, electronic distribution, and a requirement to destroy the documents at the conclusion of the proceedings.

During the examination-in-chief of the grievor in a workplace harassment and discrimination arbitration, the grievor testified about three incidents not included in the union's statement of particulars.

The employer moved to strike this evidence.

The union argued the incidents were relevant to establishing the manager's animus toward the grievor.

The arbitrator dismissed the employer's motion, ruling that the union should be afforded the opportunity to adduce further evidence on these matters, with the employer given latitude to cross-examine.

The Union filed a grievance alleging the Employer breached the collective agreement by denying the grievor Short Term Sickness Plan (STSP) benefits while she was on an accommodated work schedule.

The Employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the grievance as untimely, arguing the grievance was filed nine months after the initial denial.

The Arbitrator dismissed the preliminary motion, finding that the ongoing denial of STSP benefits constituted a continuing grievance because the Employer had a recurring duty under the collective agreement to provide such benefits.

The grievance was therefore timely and directed to proceed on its merits.

The grievor, a Correctional Officer, filed a grievance claiming the Employer failed to include his prior service with the Ministry of Natural Resources and as a regular Motor Vehicle Operator when calculating his Continuous Service Date.

The grievor had resigned from his regular position to accept a fixed-term Correctional Officer position.

The Arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that under the collective agreement, the grievor's resignation deemed his continuous service up to that point to have terminated, causing a break in service.

Prior to the hearing of a discharge grievance, the union requested the production of an investigation report and related materials.

The arbitrator ordered the employer to produce the investigation report, appendices, and all non-privileged materials to the union, subject to strict confidentiality conditions regarding electronic distribution, copying, and sharing with the grievor.

The Union filed grievances on behalf of 11 employees who were denied enhanced benefits under the Transition Exit Initiative (TEI).

The Union argued that the Employer improperly exercised its discretion and discriminated against three grievors on Long Term Income Protection (LTIP) by denying their applications as a class.

The Arbitrator dismissed the grievances, finding that the Employer properly exercised its broad discretion under Appendix 46 of the Collective Agreement.

The Arbitrator also held that denying TEI to employees on LTIP did not violate the Ontario Human Rights Code, as they no longer held permanent positions that could be eliminated to prevent surplussing other employees, which is the core objective of the TEI program.

The Union sought production of a 'Workplace Culture Review' document in relation to grievances alleging a toxic workplace, harassment, and bullying.

The Employer opposed production, arguing the document was not arguably relevant and its disclosure could be detrimental to workplace culture.

The Arbitrator found the document arguably relevant as it flowed from and addressed the issues raised in the grievances.

To mitigate potential harm to the workplace and preserve settlement opportunities, the Arbitrator ordered the document produced only to Union counsel and the assigned Grievance Officer, subject to the implied undertaking rule.

The Employer requested an order that any grievors who do not respond to the Union's request for information by October 4, 2023, will have their grievances dismissed.

The Union did not oppose the request.

The Grievance Settlement Board granted the order on consent, appending a list of the affected grievances.

The Employer brought a motion to dismiss the grievance after the grievor failed to attend a scheduled hearing and subsequently failed to provide medical documentation supporting her claim of a torn rotator cuff.

The arbitrator found the grievor's explanation insufficient on its face but declined to dismiss the grievance, instead ordering the Union to provide proper medical documentation verifying the absence within 30 days.

The grievor failed to attend a scheduled continuation of his arbitration hearing regarding workplace harassment and involuntary resignation.

The employer indicated it might bring a motion to dismiss the grievances.

The arbitrator adjourned the hearing and directed the grievor to provide written reasons for his non-attendance and failure to provide notice, warning that failure to do so or failure to attend the next scheduled date would result in the dismissal of the grievances without further notice.

The Employer brought a preliminary motion arguing the Union had not established a prima facie breach of the collective agreement.

The grievance challenged the Employer's decision to place the Grievor on unpaid leave for failing to comply with a mandatory Covid-19 testing policy, arguing it was unreasonable to deny the Grievor's request to work from an alternate location.

The Arbitrator found that the agreed facts did not support the Union's contention that the decision was unreasonable, and the Union had no evidence to contradict the Employer's rationale.

The grievance was dismissed.

The parties jointly requested a consent order for the production of an investigation report and related materials in a discharge grievance.

The arbitrator granted the request and ordered the employer to produce the documents subject to agreed-upon confidentiality and use conditions.

The grievor failed to attend a scheduled video conference hearing for her grievance.

The arbitrator issued an order requiring the grievor to provide reasons for her absence by a specified date, failing which the grievance would be dismissed.

The grievor did not provide any reasons by the deadline, and the grievance was consequently dismissed.

The union filed a grievance alleging that the grievor's placement on the wage grid at the time of hiring was improper.

The matter proceeded through the 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.