OGSB 2024

The union filed grievances on behalf of ten employees alleging the employer violated the collective agreement by failing to provide 96 hours' notice of a shift schedule change.

The employees, who were scheduled to work on Family Day under a new compressed work week agreement, were advised 88 hours in advance that they were not required to work on the statutory holiday.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievances, finding that advising employees their services are not required on a statutory holiday does not constitute a change to the shift schedule.

The employer was exercising its management rights to determine staffing levels and paid the employees in accordance with the collective agreement for the un-worked holiday.

In a grievance arbitration concerning the termination of a correctional officer for excessive use of force against an inmate, the union sought to introduce the disciplinary record of another employee to argue inconsistent discipline.

The employer objected to the admission of the documents.

The arbitrator upheld the objection, finding that the material facts of the two incidents did not substantially conform.

The arbitrator held that admitting the evidence would unnecessarily prolong the hearing and require the employer to respond to an old, unrelated incident, concluding the documents were not arguably relevant.

The grievor, a correctional officer, was issued a 10-day suspension for misconduct including unauthorized cell phone use, misusing government IT resources, abandoning his post, and consuming food at his workstation.

The employer discovered the misconduct by reviewing video surveillance footage from two days prior to the shift in question, while investigating a separate issue regarding protective eyewear.

The union grieved the discipline, arguing the employer's use of video surveillance breached the collective agreement.

The arbitrator found the union's argument regarding the video surveillance had some cogency and determined the 10-day suspension was excessive given the grievor's prior disciplinary record.

The grievance was allowed in part, and the suspension was reduced to 5 days.

The grievor, a Correctional Officer, filed a grievance alleging the Employer incorrectly calculated his Continuous Service Date (CSD) when he rolled over from a fixed-term to a classified position.

The grievor argued his prior seasonal employment with the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry should count without interruption.

The Arbitrator found that the collective agreement required the CSD to be calculated from the last break in employment greater than 13 weeks.

The Employer's recalculation, which identified a 15-week break ending in January 2015, was correct.

The grievance was upheld in part to reflect the recalculated CSD of December 31, 2016.

The grievor, a Correctional Officer, was suspended for one day without pay after being observed on video not wearing required PPE and eating in a non-designated area during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The grievor subsequently tested positive for COVID-19, requiring co-workers to self-isolate.

The Union grieved the suspension, arguing it was without just cause and noting the grievor's honesty and apologies.

The Arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding the Employer had just cause for the suspension given the seriousness of the breach of infection prevention measures and the impact on co-workers.

The grievor failed to attend the scheduled continuation of his examination-in-chief at the grievance arbitration hearing.

The union was unable to contact the grievor or provide an explanation for his absence, despite having sent a timely reminder.

The parties agreed to adjourn the hearing.

The arbitrator directed that the grievor be provided an opportunity to explain his absence at the next scheduled hearing date, warning that future unexplained absences could result in the dismissal of the grievances.

The union filed four grievances relating to health and safety concerns at a correctional facility during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic.

In each case, the union had previously sought an order from a Ministry of Labour inspector under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, but the inspector declined to make an order.

Instead of appealing the inspectors' decisions to the Ontario Labour Relations Board, the union filed grievances.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the grievances.

The arbitrator granted the motion, finding that the grievances constituted an improper collateral attack on the inspectors' decisions and were barred by issue estoppel, as the union had chosen the statutory enforcement route and failed to exhaust its appeal rights.

The union filed grievances on behalf of two employees regarding the application of a lump sum payment provision in the collective agreement.

One grievor retired before the qualifying date of January 1, 2016, and the other was on maternity leave during the calculation period, receiving EI but no employer pay.

The arbitrator dismissed both grievances, finding the retired employee did not meet the clear membership date requirement.

For the employee on maternity leave, the arbitrator accepted the employer's interpretation that the payment was calculated only on base salary earnings paid by the employer, and found no Code-based discrimination.

The grievor, a Rehabilitation Officer, grieved a ten-day disciplinary suspension for providing preferential treatment to an incarcerated correctional officer by preparing a Temporary Absence Permit (TAP) for him.

The Ministry also disciplined the grievor for failing to be forthright during the investigation and for failing to retain electronic documents.

The arbitrator found that the grievor's actions were part of a concerted effort to provide preferential treatment to a fellow employee, which constituted a serious violation of conflict of interest regulations.

The arbitrator concluded that the Ministry had proven just cause for discipline and that the ten-day suspension was proportionate to the misconduct.

The grievance was dismissed.

The union grieved a five-day suspension imposed on the grievor in 2020, alleging it was unjust or excessive.

The matter proceeded via an expedited mediation-arbitration process.

The arbitrator found just cause for discipline but reduced the suspension to one day.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued case management directions for an arbitration proceeding between the Union and the Employer.

The Arbitrator set deadlines for the initial production of documents, the exchange of witness declarations, and the filing of a Joint Book.

The directions also outlined the procedure for cross-examining declarants and scheduled a further case management call.

The union referred six grievances to arbitration on behalf of a court registrar.

Two grievances alleged a loss of pay for attending previous GSB hearings; these were dismissed as the grievor was credited with his daily average hours.

Another grievance alleged discrimination and harassment after a manager emailed the grievor to ask if he was returning to work after a hearing concluded early; this was dismissed as frivolous.

The remaining three grievances alleged the employer abused its rights by failing to provide one hour of pre-court preparation time.

The arbitrator found no right to such preparation time under the collective agreement and dismissed the grievances.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of the grievor.

During the course of the proceedings, the parties devoted considerable time to addressing production issues to ensure an effective and efficient hearing on the merits.

The parties requested a consent order to address all outstanding production issues.

The arbitrator issued the consent order, setting deadlines for the employer's response to the union's production request, the identification of any outstanding production issues, and the finalization of an Agreed Statement of Facts.

The Employer brought a preliminary objection to strike portions of the Union's particulars, arguing they impermissibly expanded the scope of the grievance.

The original grievance alleged a failure to accommodate medical restrictions regarding a shift change.

The Union's particulars added allegations that the grievor was repeatedly assigned duties beyond her medical restrictions.

The Arbitrator dismissed the Employer's motion, finding that the assigned duties allegations flowed naturally from the broad wording of the grievance, which alleged a general failure to accommodate and disregard of medical documentation.

The union filed three grievances alleging that the employer engaged in a course of harassment and reprisals against employees who raised safety concerns.

The employer brought preliminary motions to dismiss the first grievance as untimely and to dismiss all grievances for failing to establish a prima facie case.

The arbitrator found the first grievance was filed months late and declined to exercise discretion to extend the time limits, noting the lack of credible reasons for the delay.

However, the arbitrator dismissed the employer's motion regarding no prima facie case, finding that the union's particulars, if accepted as true, were capable of supporting its legal theory of a pattern of harassment and reprisals.

The remaining grievances will proceed to a hearing on the merits.

The Union sought a production order for the telematics data of six inspectors who were not part of the underground economy project, arguing it was relevant to the grievor's termination for alleged overtime fraud.

The Employer opposed the request, arguing it was a fishing expedition and the documents were not relevant.

The Arbitrator denied the request, finding no factual foundation to support the claim that the other inspectors engaged in similar conduct or that the Employer knew of any such misconduct, distinguishing the case from situations where unequal discipline for known identical misconduct was at issue.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of a fixed-term Correctional Officer, alleging the employer violated the collective agreement by failing to convert her to the Regular Service after she performed the same work for over eighteen months.

The union argued the employer's obligation under article 31A.15.1.1 was triggered.

The employer argued there was no continuing need for the specific work to be performed on a full-time basis.

The arbitrator found that the union failed to establish a continuing need for the work of the posted position to be performed on a full-time basis, and dismissed the grievance.

The union filed a grievance claiming a shift premium for hours worked between 5:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on behalf of a part-time, flexible Court Clerk and Registrar.

The arbitrator found that the grievor's normal hours of work fell between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.

Under the collective agreement, the shift premium does not apply when an employee's normal hours fall within 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.

The grievance was dismissed.

The parties could not agree on the implementation timelines for retroactive adjustments following a decision declaring the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation a paid holiday.

The Union requested a July 1, 2024 implementation date, while the Employer proposed assigning holiday Compensating Time Off credits by August 31, 2024, and paying eligible employees by September 30, 2024.

The Arbitrator adopted the Employer's proposal as the earliest reasonable dates for implementation.

The Employer raised a preliminary objection that the Union was improperly attempting to expand the scope of an 'unjust termination' grievance to include allegations of discrimination and failure to accommodate the grievor's alcohol disability.

The Arbitrator dismissed the objection, finding that the grievor's alcohol problem had been disclosed and discussed throughout the investigation and grievance process.

The Employer reasonably ought to have expected that the Union would pursue the issue of discrimination and the duty to accommodate, even if the legal terms were not explicitly used in the grievance form.