OGSB 2024

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

The matter proceeded through an 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.

The grievor, a Corrections Officer, was issued a 15-day suspension for improperly wearing his PPE and intentionally blocking a CCTV camera with a wet floor sign during a COVID-19 outbreak, which prevented contact tracing.

The union grieved the discipline, arguing it was excessive, inconsistent with past practice, and motivated by anti-union animus.

The Arbitrator found no evidence of condonation or anti-union animus and upheld the seriousness of the camera obstruction.

However, the Arbitrator found the PPE breach warranted only a letter of counsel and reduced the overall penalty to a 10-day suspension.

The arbitrator issued a production order requiring the disclosure of the grievor's medical records, long-term disability file from Desjardins Insurance, correspondence regarding a civil claim and settlement, and the group benefit file from Canada Life.

The documents were deemed arguably relevant to the proceeding and were ordered to be produced subject to confidentiality undertakings and claims of privilege.

The Union brought a motion to grant the grievance challenging the grievor's termination, arguing the Employer failed to produce Parts D and E of the Local Investigative Report.

The Union alleged a pattern of bad faith in the Employer's failure to provide timely disclosure.

The Arbitrator found no evidence that the Employer deliberately withheld the documents or acted in bad faith, noting it was likely the documents were never completed.

The Arbitrator concluded the absence of the documents did not compromise the Union's ability to make full answer and defence, given the extensive documentary evidence already produced and the opportunity to cross-examine the decision-maker.

The motion was dismissed.

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

The matter proceeded through the Expedited Mediation-Arbitration process.

The arbitrator found just cause for discipline but reduced the suspension to five days.

The parties engaged in mediation regarding a grievance filed by Chris MacDonald but did not reach a settlement.

The Arbitrator issued procedural orders setting deadlines for the Employer to respond to the Union's settlement proposal, provide particulars of a timeliness motion, and produce outstanding disclosure including correspondence and the Audit and Inspection Handbook.

Deadlines were also set for drafting a partial agreed statement of facts.

The Employer raised two preliminary objections to a grievance alleging a failure to accommodate the grievor on the basis of family status.

First, the Employer argued the grievance was barred by a prior Minutes of Settlement.

The Arbitrator dismissed this objection, finding the settlement release was explicitly limited to claims arising up to the date it was signed, whereas the current grievance concerned subsequent accommodation requests.

Second, the Employer argued the Union's particulars regarding denied compassionate care leave improperly expanded the grievance.

The Arbitrator dismissed this objection as well, finding the leave denials were cited as examples of the ongoing failure to accommodate and flowed directly from the core allegations in the grievance.

The Union brought a motion seeking directions on whether a December 2018 memo from the Secretary of Cabinet fundamentally changed the operation of the Transition Exit Initiative (TEI) under Appendix 46 of the Collective Agreement.

The Union argued the memo supported a more permissive approach to granting TEI applications, particularly for correctional officers.

The Arbitrator found that the memo merely expanded the program to previously excluded employees and did not alter the broad discretion of the Employer to approve applications based on its vision of transformation.

The motion was dismissed, and the parties were directed to proceed with the remaining grievances under the previously established principles.

The grievor filed a grievance claiming he was improperly denied the right to return to his former position without loss of time after taking a leave of absence.

This was the second grievance filed by the grievor regarding the exact same issue, with the first having been dismissed by the Board in a prior decision.

The employer brought a motion to dismiss the current grievance on the basis of res judicata.

The arbitrator upheld the motion, finding that the grievor was seeking to re-litigate a matter already decided between the same parties on the same facts, and dismissed the grievance.

The arbitrator held a case conference to address the grievor's failure to provide a list of disputed facts and repeated breaches of a prior order prohibiting direct contact with the arbitrator.

As the grievor failed to provide the list of disputed facts, the factual allegations in the discipline letters were deemed accepted.

Furthermore, because the grievor violated the order against direct contact six times without apology, the arbitrator dismissed three of the six active grievances as a sanction.

The remaining three grievances (including a discharge grievance) were scheduled for hearing.

The employer requested particulars for two grievances.

The arbitrator found that emails attached to the first grievance served as sufficient particulars.

However, the second grievance lacked a coherent explanation.

The arbitrator ordered the grievor to provide coherent particulars for the second grievance by April 12, 2024, failing which it would be dismissed for lack of arbitrability.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued a confidentiality order regarding medical records produced by the Union in a grievance arbitration.

The order restricted the use, copying, and circulation of the records to the purposes of the arbitration and required their destruction or return at the conclusion of the proceedings.

The grievor, a Correctional Officer, filed a grievance claiming the Employer erred in calculating his Continuous Service Date (CSD) by excluding his prior employment at the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation (OLGC).

The union argued that because the OPSEU Pension Plan recognized the OLGC service date, the Employer should as well.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that the OLGC is a Crown agency not directly operated by the provincial government and therefore not part of the Ontario Public Service (OPS).

Consistent with prior decisions, only time worked within the OPS can be counted towards the CSD.

The Union sought a production order for documents related to the grievor's return to work and training materials for the YSO position.

The Arbitrator ordered the Employer to produce notes from return-to-work meetings, correspondence regarding return-to-work efforts, and applicable training materials.

The production was made subject to strict confidentiality and non-disclosure restrictions, particularly regarding sensitive medical records.

The Union filed grievances alleging that the grievors were temporarily assigned to perform the duties of a higher-rated Community Re-Integration Officer position, seeking compensation under the collective agreement.

The Employer raised a preliminary objection, arguing that the grievances were disguised classification grievances over which the Grievance Settlement Board lacks jurisdiction under the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act.

The Arbitrator upheld the preliminary objection, finding that the core issue was an assertion that the duties of the higher-rated position duplicated the grievors' current duties, which requires an analysis of classification.

The grievances were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The union filed a group grievance alleging that managers improperly performed bargaining unit work and failed to follow safety regulations when they shut down and locked out a machine for 15 minutes to allow a contractor to take measurements.

The employer argued the work was not exclusively bargaining unit work and was de minimis.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding the work was brief, incidental, and spontaneous, and did not threaten the integrity of the bargaining unit.

The arbitrator also found no evidence that the managers' safety assessment was unreasonable or in breach of regulations.

The Union filed a grievance alleging the Employer violated the collective agreement by failing to post and fill vacancies or roll over fixed-term employees into regular positions at the Elgin-Middlesex Detention Centre.

The Employer argued that vacancies were temporarily held open to absorb staff displaced by the closure of the Regional Intermittent Centre during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The arbitrator found that the Employer had a valid reason for holding the vacancies open and noted that the parties had since executed two Memoranda of Agreement to roll over fixed-term staff into regular service.

The grievance was dismissed.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of a correctional officer claiming the employer failed to properly determine his accumulated hours following his return to work, seeking recognition of previous service as a fixed-term employee.

The employer brought a motion to dismiss the grievance on the basis of res judicata, noting that the grievor had filed an identical grievance previously which was dismissed by the Board.

The arbitrator granted the employer's motion, finding that the grievor was attempting to re-litigate the same issue between the same parties on the same facts, and dismissed the grievance.

The employer brought preliminary objections seeking to dismiss the grievance for failing to disclose a prima facie case and arguing the union sought to improperly expand the scope of the grievance.

The arbitrator found that the union's allegations regarding a single incident of sexual harassment and the employer's subsequent failure to conduct an appropriate investigation or communicate its results established a prima facie case.

On the issue of scope, the arbitrator held that while the union could not argue a freestanding breach of Article 22.10.3.2 regarding time limits, it could raise arguments about the appropriateness of the investigation and communication of results, as these were inherent in the original grievance citing health and safety and human rights provisions.

The preliminary objections were dismissed in part and the matter was directed to proceed on the merits.

A correctional officer filed three grievances alleging the employer breached the collective agreement by issuing three letters of reprimand for failing to wear a face mask as required by a Ministry Directive during the Covid-19 pandemic.

The parties referred the matter to mediation/arbitration and requested a decision without written reasons.

The arbitrator denied the grievances.