OGSB 2024

The grievor, a Fixed Term Youth Services Officer, filed a grievance claiming his continuous service should include time worked at a different Ministry prior to his current employment.

The grievor had resigned from his previous regular position to take a fixed-term position after being denied a sufficient leave of absence for training.

The Arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that under the collective agreement, the grievor's resignation from his previous position resulted in the termination of his continuous service, causing a break in service.

The Union brought a request for production of documents, and the Employer brought preliminary motions regarding the scope of four active grievances and the arbitrability of one allegation.

The Arbitrator held that the scope of the grievances must be construed narrowly, limiting the evidence to the specific incidents set out in the grievance forms, given the contrast with a previously settled, broadly drafted grievance.

The Arbitrator found the grievor had standing to arbitrate an incident involving a coworker, as it could constitute harassment directed at the grievor.

Production of documents was ordered only to the extent they fell within the narrowed scope of the grievances, and requests for similar fact evidence and broad communications were denied to prevent a fishing expedition.

The union filed a grievance after the grievor was declared to have abandoned his position and his employment was terminated.

During a conference call, union counsel reported that the grievor had not communicated with the union despite numerous attempts.

The arbitrator issued a decision strongly urging the grievor to contact the union and warning that any future failure to attend a mediation or hearing without adequate notice or explanation could lead to the dismissal of the grievance.

The grievor, a Fixed Term Youth Services Officer, sought payment for ten hours of overtime allegedly spent writing four Occurrence Reports after his regular shift ended.

The Employer denied the claim, arguing the overtime was not authorized and the time claimed was excessive for the work produced.

The Arbitrator found that while there was implicit authorization for some overtime, it was implausible that it took 11.5 hours to write the four short and error-riddled reports.

The grievance was upheld in part, and the Employer was directed to pay the grievor for 1.5 hours of overtime.

Six grievances were filed alleging the Employer breached the collective agreement and the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) by inadvertently allowing unrestricted access to personal and confidential employee information on the computer network for approximately 43 hours.

The arbitrator found that the Employer breached FIPPA by exposing the sensitive information, causing the grievors stress.

The grievances were upheld, and the Employer was ordered to pay $350 in damages to each grievor and to share the results of the ongoing forensic IT audit once completed.

The union filed a grievance alleging the grievor was improperly denied vacation credits while on Long Term Income Protection (LTIP).

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the grievance was untimely, having been filed over two years after the grievor ought to have known she was not accumulating vacation credits.

The union argued the employer waived its right to object by participating in the grievance process and taking fresh steps.

The arbitrator found the grievance was untimely and declined to extend the time limits under the Labour Relations Act.

The arbitrator also held that the employer did not waive its right to object, as it had reserved its rights while seeking necessary particulars to understand the vague grievance.

The grievance was dismissed.

The grievor, a Correctional Officer, filed a grievance alleging the Employer violated the Collective Agreement by failing to implement his new wage rate and pay retroactive monies in a timely manner following an interest arbitration award.

The grievor claimed the delay prevented him from securing a mortgage pre-approval, causing him to miss out on purchasing a home before prices rose, and sought $10,000 in damages.

The Arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding the three-and-a-half-month delay was not inordinate given the volume of calculations required and the grievor's specific circumstances involving a recent parental leave.

The Arbitrator concluded there was no basis in the Collective Agreement or jurisprudence to award damages for changes in real estate market conditions.

Two correctional officers filed grievances alleging they were bullied and harassed by their sergeant while working in segregation review.

The arbitrator found the grievors' evidence credible and concluded that the sergeant's repeated yelling, demeaning comments, and aggressive behaviour created a toxic work environment.

The conduct was found to be a marked departure from reasonable behaviour with no legitimate workplace purpose, satisfying the definition of workplace harassment under the collective agreement and the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The grievances were allowed and the matter remitted to the parties to address remedy.

The union filed grievances on behalf of a fixed-term correctional officer, alleging her total hours worked were incorrectly calculated, which delayed her rollover into the regular service.

The employer acknowledged the miscalculation and agreed to roll the grievor over into the regular service effective October 14, 2024.

The sole outstanding issue was the determination of the grievor's Continuous Service Date (CSD).

The arbitrator directed the employer to record the grievor's CSD as May 10, 2019.

The union filed a grievance alleging the employer violated the collective agreement by requiring Transmission Maintenance Employees to work five 8-hour days instead of four 10-hour days.

The union argued the employer was estopped from changing the schedule and that the change was a reprisal.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding no jurisdiction to order the employer to enter into a compressed work week arrangement absent a collective agreement violation.

The estoppel argument failed because the union signed the renewal memorandum of agreement after being notified of the schedule change, and the reprisal argument lacked particulars.

The grievor, a correctional officer, filed two grievances.

The first alleged the Employer breached the Collective Agreement by refusing to reimburse him for home security upgrades implemented after an inmate threatened him.

The second alleged the Employer breached a Memorandum of Settlement by housing the threatening inmate at his institution.

The arbitrator dismissed both grievances, noting that the security report stated upgrades were the homeowner's responsibility, and the Memorandum of Settlement explicitly permitted the inmate to be housed at the institution for required court attendances.

The grievor, a Fixed Term Correctional Officer, alleged that the Employer breached the Collective Agreement by unfairly applying a Memorandum of Agreement regarding temporary placements during a capital project at the North Bay Jail.

The grievor claimed his ability to progress in seniority was impaired.

The arbitrator found that the grievor never made a formal transfer request and that the employees who were transferred either went to institutions the grievor had not expressed interest in or had greater seniority than the grievor.

The grievance was dismissed as there was no breach of the MOA or the Collective Agreement.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of a fixed-term correctional officer who claimed he resigned from his previous regular service position under duress to accept the fixed-term role, seeking to maintain his unbroken service.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the grievor chose to resign from his regular position to work as a fixed-term correctional officer, which resulted in the termination of his continuous service under the collective agreement.

The Board concluded there was no duress, as it was the grievor's choice, and dismissed the grievance.

The Association sought the production of documents in a consolidated grievance arbitration concerning remote work.

The grievors, Senior Program Administrators, worked remotely during the COVID-19 pandemic and subsequently sought Alternate Work Arrangements (AWAs).

The Arbitrator ordered the Employer to produce documents relating to AWA requests managed by a specific supervisor, the decision to make the position remote during the pandemic, and all internal communications and notes regarding the consideration of the complainants' AWA requests.

The parties met to mediate two grievances alleging discrimination based on disability and failure to accommodate, resulting in a loss of pay and vacation credits.

The parties determined that case management was necessary to facilitate mediation.

The arbitrator issued a case management decision outlining the agreed-upon schedule for the delivery of particulars, prehearing production, and preliminary motions leading up to the scheduled mediation.

The Union requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing for medical reasons, which the Employer opposed due to the grievor's failure to provide particulars and a history of previous adjournments.

The arbitrator granted the adjournment but imposed strict conditions, requiring the grievor to provide medical documentation substantiating his inability to attend and setting a firm deadline for the provision of particulars, failing which the grievance may be dismissed.

The grievor, a Fixed Term Youth Services Officer, was not enrolled in the OP Trust pension plan at the time of his hire due to an employer administrative error.

Over two years later, the grievor discovered the error and arranged to buy back the missed pension credits over a ten-year period, incurring $3,400.35 in interest.

The union grieved, seeking to have the employer pay the full interest amount.

The arbitrator found that while the employer breached its obligation to enroll the grievor, the grievor should have noticed the lack of deductions on his pay stubs and T4s, and chose the longest possible financing term.

The grievance was upheld in part, with the employer ordered to pay half of the interest costs.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of a correctional officer who was required to work 20 consecutive shifts to requalify for short-term sick leave after returning from an extended absence for cancer treatment.

The union argued the grievor should have been considered to have worked on January 1, 2023, as he was marked 'worked stat on stat' on the schedule.

The arbitrator found that the grievor was in the hospital on January 1, 2023, and his sick leave straddled two calendar years.

Under the collective agreement, an employee whose sick leave straddles two calendar years must work 20 consecutive days to re-establish entitlement.

The grievance was dismissed.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of the grievor alleging that the employer's investigation into a complaint he had filed was not handled properly.

The matter proceeded to an expedited mediation-arbitration process.

The arbitrator found that the investigative process was not flawed and was reasonable in all the circumstances.

The grievance was dismissed.

The union filed grievances on behalf of the grievor requesting the removal of a Letter of Counsel from his employee file.

The matter proceeded through an expedited mediation-arbitration process.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievances, finding that letters of counsel are not disciplinary in nature and are therefore not grievable, meaning no violation of the collective agreement occurred.