OGSB 2024

The union grieved a three-day suspension imposed on the grievor for reporting to work with a cold during a period when COVID-19 self-screening protocols were in effect.

The matter proceeded via expedited mediation-arbitration.

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

The Union requested the production of employment and medical related documentation for certain employees in relation to a grievance claiming entitlement to the Custodial Responsibility Allowance.

The Arbitrator found the requested documentation arguably relevant to the issues in dispute and directed the Employer to disclose it forthwith, subject to strict privacy conditions restricting its use and dissemination.

The Grievor, a registered nurse at a detention centre, was assaulted by an inmate while conducting an intake assessment alone, contrary to institutional policy requiring a correctional officer to be present.

The Union grieved that the Employer failed to ensure her health and safety by not preventing the assault, delaying her transport to the hospital, and allowing her to drive home alone afterwards.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that the assault resulted from the Grievor's own decision to proceed without a correctional officer, that the delay in hospital transport was due to her choice to wait for police, and that the Employer acted reasonably regarding her transportation home.

Two correctional officers grieved the termination of their employment.

They were discharged for failing to intervene when an inmate was harassed and physically assaulted by other inmates, and for failing to report the assault to their supervisor or file an occurrence report.

The arbitrator found that the grievors failed in their duty of care to the inmate by not intervening sooner and not exercising appropriate vigilance.

The arbitrator also found that the grievors failed to report the assault and falsely claimed their supervisor had directed them not to file a report.

Given the serious dereliction of duty and the grievors' lack of truthfulness, the arbitrator concluded the employer had just cause for discharge and declined to substitute a lesser penalty.

The grievances were dismissed.

During a grievance arbitration involving multiple grievances, one grievor failed to attend the first two hearing dates without explanation.

The employer moved to dismiss his grievances.

The arbitrator declined to dismiss the grievances immediately, finding it would be unfair without giving the grievor an opportunity to explain his absence.

The arbitrator ordered that the grievor has two weeks to provide an explanation to the union, failing which his grievances will be deemed abandoned or dismissed.

The parties mediated a grievance alleging a violation of Appendix COR 14 of the OPSEU Correctional Bargaining Unit Collective Agreement regarding the implementation of an Occupational Stress Injury module within a training program.

The parties agreed to a consent order wherein the employer acknowledged contravening the collective agreement by failing to provide the OSI Sub-Committee an opportunity to review the training content and provide feedback prior to implementation.

The consent order requires the employer to comply with the collective agreement for any future modifications to the module.

The Employer brought two motions to dismiss a Union grievance alleging a failure to provide insured benefits for diagnostic procedures.

The Employer argued the Union failed to establish a prima facie case and that the Arbitrator lacked jurisdiction because individual claims must be addressed by the Claims Review Subcommittee.

The Arbitrator dismissed both motions, finding the Union's particulars sufficient to establish a prima facie case and confirming jurisdiction to declare a collective agreement contravention.

However, the Arbitrator ordered the grievance held in abeyance until the individual denied claims are addressed by the Claims Review Subcommittee.

The Union sought an order for the production of documents related to directives issued in March and April 2023 regarding commuting for Canine Conservation Officers.

The Employer argued that some of the requests were too broad and constituted a fishing expedition, and suggested a temporal limit for others.

The Arbitrator ordered the Employer to produce all arguably relevant materials, finding that the narrow focus of the issue and the short timeline made 'arguably relevant' the appropriate limit, while narrowing one request to specific inquiries to avoid a fishing expedition.

Following a finding that the Employer failed to comply with the procedural requirements of a Memorandum of Settlement during an investigation into alleged use of force, the Union sought damages for loss of earnings, general damages, and violation damages.

The Arbitrator held that the Board lacked jurisdiction to award loss of earnings or general damages because, even if the proper procedure had been followed, the grievors would have been suspended and suffered the same losses.

The Arbitrator declined to award violation damages, noting the breach was inadvertent, there was no bad faith, and there was no need for deterrence.

The parties participated in a Med/Arb process to resolve outstanding overtime grievances at various institutions within the Ministry of the Solicitor General.

Following a hearing on May 28, 2024, the Arbitrator issued a bottom-line decision resolving 102 individual overtime grievances.

Several grievances were upheld with specific overtime hours awarded, while the majority were dismissed.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss a grievance for delay, arguing it was filed outside the 30-day time limit set out in the collective agreement.

The grievance alleged the employer failed to provide sick leave credits to the grievor while she was on a graduated return to work plan.

The arbitrator dismissed the motion, finding that the failure to provide sick credits was not a single discrete decision but rather a continuing breach of the collective agreement that recurred each time the grievor worked the requisite number of days without receiving a credit.

Therefore, the grievance was timely, and any issues of delay would be addressed in the damages phase.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued a consent order establishing a procedural timetable for the continuation of a labour arbitration.

The order set dates for the exchange of particulars, document production, and will-say statements, and scheduled continuation hearing dates for July and August 2025.

The union filed a grievance alleging the employer failed to accommodate the grievor.

Following unsuccessful mediation, the parties agreed to a schedule for the delivery of particulars, pre-hearing production of documents including medical records, and preliminary motions.

The arbitrator issued a case management decision formalizing the agreed-upon timeline and scheduling future hearing dates.

In an interim decision regarding a grievance challenging the termination of the grievor's employment for allegedly filing false health benefit claims, the employer sought production of medical records and electronic notes/calendar entries.

The union opposed the request for electronic notes, arguing it was late and irrelevant.

The arbitrator found that the requested materials were arguably relevant to the issues in dispute, including the grievor's mitigation efforts, medical condition, and whether the claimed health services were provided.

The arbitrator ordered the production of the requested medical records and electronic notes.

The union filed a grievance alleging that the employer violated the grievor's rights under the Ontario Human Rights Code, the collective agreement, and employer policies.

The parties participated in an expedited mediation-arbitration process.

The arbitrator upheld the grievance in part and directed the employer to pay the grievor $500 minus statutory deductions.

The parties attended a case management hearing regarding two grievances arising from discipline.

The arbitrator issued a scheduling order on consent, setting dates for pre-hearing production, delivery of particulars, exchange of an agreed statement of facts, and hearing dates for mediation/arbitration.

The Union filed a group grievance alleging that the Employer violated the collective agreement and the Human Rights Code by failing to offer the grievors the Overall Responsible Operator (ORO) role, instead appointing a younger employee with a lower-level license.

The Employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the grievance for lack of jurisdiction and failure to plead a prima facie case.

The Arbitrator found that the collective agreement did not address ORO designations and that the Board lacked free-standing jurisdiction to review management rights absent a specific collective agreement provision.

Furthermore, the Arbitrator held that the Union's bald assertions of age discrimination lacked sufficient particulars to establish a prima facie case.

The grievance was dismissed.

The Union grieved the termination of the Claimant's long-term disability benefits.

The Claimant, who had previously experienced a major depressive episode attributed to workplace harassment, refused to participate in a gradual return-to-work plan at her home position, citing fears of a relapse.

The Arbitrator found that the medical evidence indicated the Claimant's condition was in full remission and she was capable of performing the essential duties of her occupation.

The Arbitrator concluded that the rehabilitation plan proposed by the insurer was reasonable and that the Claimant was not totally disabled at the time her benefits were terminated.

The grievance was dismissed.

In a grievance arbitration under the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act, the arbitrator ordered the Union to provide written particulars of material facts and supporting documents to the Employer by August 15, 2024, due to delays.

If the Union fails to comply, the Employer's motion for dismissal will be heard on October 15, 2024.

The employer brought a motion to limit the remedies available to the grievor, arguing that her claims for lost earnings during an unsuccessful return to work process were essentially claims for compensation for a workplace injury, which fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act (WSIA).

The union argued the claims were for breaches of the collective agreement, the Human Rights Code, and the Occupational Health and Safety Act, specifically regarding the duty to accommodate and provide a safe workplace.

The arbitrator dismissed the employer's motion, finding that the claims invoked rights separate and severable from those under the WSIA and were therefore within the Board's jurisdiction to proceed.