OGSB 2024

The Association filed complaints alleging the employer contravened the collective agreement by limiting requests for alternative work arrangements to work remotely at home.

The parties agreed upon a consent order setting out continuation dates and timelines for process, including particulars and production.

The Board issued the consent order and remained seized with the complaints.

Following a Divisional Court decision quashing a previous arbitrator's ruling and remitting the matter back to the Grievance Settlement Board, a dispute arose regarding scheduling.

The employer sought to condition the scheduling of new dates on the completion of any potential appeal to the Court of Appeal.

The union argued for scheduling dates in the normal course, with adjournment requests to be handled later if necessary.

The arbitrator agreed with the union and directed that dates be scheduled in the normal fashion.

The union filed a grievance after the grievor was provided with notice that their fixed term contract would end.

Following an unsuccessful mediation, a case management hearing was held.

The parties agreed to a schedule for consolidation, prehearing production, particulars, and the preparation of an agreed statement of fact prior to the first day of mediation/arbitration.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of the grievor alleging that the employer violated his rights and engaged in harassment.

The matter proceeded to an expedited mediation-arbitration process under the collective agreement.

The arbitrator reviewed the facts and submissions and concluded that there was no violation of the collective agreement.

The grievance was dismissed.

The union filed two grievances: a competition grievance alleging the grievor was unfairly denied a position, and a discrimination grievance alleging the employer discriminated against her due to her union activity.

The employer brought preliminary motions to strike certain particulars in both grievances, arguing they improperly expanded the scope of the original grievances, and to dismiss the discrimination grievance for failing to establish a prima facie case.

The Arbitrator dismissed the motions, finding that allegations of unfairness were inherent to the competition grievance and that the particulars provided for the discrimination grievance were capable of supporting the alleged violations.

The Union grieved the Employer's decision to award a job to a candidate other than the grievor.

In a procedural decision, the Arbitrator directed the Employer to produce arguably relevant documents, subject to redactions for personal information and the implied undertaking rule.

The Arbitrator also directed the Union to provide particulars of the grievance by a specified date.

The grievor, a driver responsible for delivering vaccines, was suspended for one day after deliberately leaving vaccines on a loading dock, causing temperature excursions.

The employer also alleged the grievor breached his oath of office by making disparaging comments to public health units.

The arbitrator found the temperature excursions were proven and caused by the grievor's deliberate actions in protest of operational changes.

While the breach of the oath of office was not established due to reliance on hearsay, the one-day suspension was upheld as a reasonable penalty for the misconduct.

During submissions on preliminary motions relating to a grievance, an electrical power failure in Toronto disconnected the grievor from the virtual hearing.

As counsel would be unable to complete their submissions that day regardless, the arbitrator adjourned the proceedings and scheduled a new date for continuation.

The union filed grievances on behalf of three fixed-term correctional officers who were sent home from their pre-scheduled day shifts and directed to work night shifts due to staff shortages.

The union argued this violated the collective agreement's overtime and scheduling provisions.

The arbitrator found no violation regarding the overtime protocol, as the employer was not obligated to assign available work to fixed-term employees over those already working overtime.

However, the arbitrator held that the employer violated the collective agreement by failing to verbally confirm the shift changes in advance, granting declaratory relief.

In a discharge grievance involving a correctional officer terminated for failing to conduct adequate security patrols, the Union brought a motion to preclude the Employer from leading evidence about an inmate's suicide that occurred during the grievor's shift.

The Union argued the evidence was irrelevant and prejudicial since the Employer did not allege the grievor's conduct contributed to the death.

The Arbitrator dismissed the motion, finding the evidence relevant to provide context for the investigation, the penalty imposed, and the grievor's activities, though the Employer was prohibited from leading evidence to show the grievor caused the death without formally amending the grounds for discharge.

The union grieved the grievor's discharge.

At the hearing, the employer was unable to provide full production of video recordings it intended to rely on due to technical difficulties in transferring the files.

The union objected to the employer's failure to produce the videos and brought a motion.

The arbitrator found that the employer had not addressed the technical issue with sufficient seriousness, but granted the employer an extension until September 30, 2024, to produce the videos and other requested documents.

If the employer fails to produce the materials, a conference call will be convened to determine next steps, including whether the employer will be permitted to rely on the events recorded in the videos.

The Union filed grievances on behalf of several employees who applied for enhanced benefits under the Transition Exit Initiative (TEI) before retiring from the Ontario Public Service.

The Arbitrator applied established principles regarding the Employer's broad discretion to approve or deny TEI requests based on whether an employee's exit supports the transformation of the public service.

Finding no material facts to distinguish these grievances from previously dismissed cases, the Arbitrator concluded the Employer properly exercised its discretion and dismissed the grievances.

The Union filed a policy grievance alleging the Employer violated the collective agreement by assigning a non-bargaining unit employee (the Secretary to the Superintendent) to perform temperature checks on staff during the COVID-19 pandemic on an overtime basis.

The work had previously been performed by bargaining unit members.

The Arbitrator upheld the grievance, finding that allowing a non-bargaining unit employee to perform work regularly done by the bargaining unit undermined the integrity of the bargaining unit and violated the collective agreement's implied restrictions and overtime protocols.

The issue of the appropriate remedy was remitted back to the parties, as the matter of remedial relief for such violations was currently being litigated in another proceeding before the Grievance Settlement Board.

The grievor, a Correctional Officer, alleged that the Employer delayed processing his Record of Employment and EI pay stubs, which delayed his receipt of parental leave top-up pay under the collective agreement.

He sought 24 hours of overtime pay for the time spent communicating with the Employer and Service Canada.

The Arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that any delay was largely attributable to Service Canada's standard administrative processes and that the Employer's actions did not amount to an egregious mishandling warranting remedial relief.

The union sought an adjournment of a scheduled hearing date due to the grievor's medical issue, which the employer consented to.

On the reconvened date, the grievor failed to attend and could not be reached by the union.

The arbitrator ordered the grievor to provide an explanation for her absence prior to the next scheduled date and directed that any future medical absences must be substantiated by a medical certificate, warning that further unexplained absences could result in the grievance being dismissed.

The union filed a grievance alleging the employer failed to convene a Stage 3 meeting within the time limits set out in the collective agreement regarding an underlying harassment grievance.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that the collective agreement expressly provides a remedy for missed timelines—moving the grievance to the next stage—which had already occurred.

The arbitrator noted that scheduling is a shared responsibility and that the requested remedies, including fines and renegotiation of the grievance procedure, were outside the arbitrator's jurisdiction.

In an ongoing arbitration regarding allegations of workplace discrimination and harassment, the employer brought a motion to disallow the union from calling three proposed witnesses in reply.

The employer argued the witnesses were not present during the specific incident that led to the grievor's suspension and their evidence would be irrelevant or improper similar-fact evidence.

The arbitrator dismissed the employer's motion, finding that the employer had previously led general evidence regarding the office environment and the grievor's interactions, thereby opening the door.

The arbitrator held that a liberal approach to admissibility is appropriate in complex harassment cases, and the proposed evidence constituted proper reply evidence.

The parties met to mediate a settlement of a termination grievance but determined that prehearing production was necessary.

The arbitrator issued a case direction outlining the agreed-upon schedule for prehearing production, exchange of documents, and a subsequent mediation date.

The parties agreed to remit the issue of whether the complainant should have been converted into a Youth Justice Trainer position effective July 31, 2022, for an expedited determination without reasons.

The arbitrator directed the employer to place the complainant into the position on a permanent basis retroactive to that date, with all commensurate compensation and benefits, and deemed the probationary period completed.

The grievor failed to attend the scheduled video conference hearing for his grievance.

The union representative was unable to contact him.

The arbitrator adjourned the hearing and directed the grievor to provide reasons for his non-attendance by a specified date, failing which the grievance may be dismissed.