OGSB 2025

The grievor, a Probation and Parole Officer on a fixed term contract, resigned from her position to take a job with a municipal police force.

She returned to her previous position within a few weeks and sought to have her prior years of service recognized for seniority purposes.

The grievor argued that her manager had incorrectly advised her that she would not lose her seniority if she returned within 13 weeks.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that under the clear terms of the Collective Agreement, a resignation constitutes a break in continuous service, and the manager's incorrect advice did not override the collective agreement.

The Union filed four consolidated grievances alleging the Employer violated the collective agreement, the Human Rights Code, and other statutes by cancelling flexible work arrangements and denying accommodation requests with insufficient notice.

The Employer brought a preliminary objection arguing the Union's particulars were entirely insufficient and failed to establish a prima facie case.

The Arbitrator agreed, finding the Union failed to provide basic details (who, what, when, where, why) necessary for the Employer to know the case it had to meet.

Given the complete lack of particulars despite multiple requests over a prolonged period, the Arbitrator declined to give the Union another opportunity to amend and dismissed the grievances in their entirety.

The Employer brought preliminary motions to dismiss a union grievance concerning a workplace fatality at a probation and parole office.

The Employer argued the grievance was barred by issue estoppel, abuse of process, or collateral attack because a Ministry of Labour Inspector had already investigated the incident and issued orders under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, which the Union did not appeal.

The Arbitrator found that the preconditions for issue estoppel were met, as the grievance and the Inspector's orders addressed the same legal and factual questions between the same parties.

The Arbitrator declined to exercise discretion to bypass issue estoppel, concluding that the grievance was barred and dismissing it.

The Grievor, a correctional officer, was terminated for allegedly using excessive force (delivering no less than 10 closed fist strikes) against an inmate.

The incident occurred in a Direct Supervision Unit after the inmate became non-compliant and physically assaultive.

The arbitrator found that the Grievor's actions were reasonable defensive strikes given the inmate's size, history of violence against staff, and the fact that the inmate remained a threat even when crouched.

The grievance was allowed, and the Grievor was reinstated and made whole.

The parties engaged in mediation but were unable to reach a settlement.

The Arbitrator set continuation dates for the hearing and established a timetable for the exchange of documents, particulars, and will-say statements in lieu of viva voce evidence in chief.

The union filed grievances alleging that the employer failed to accommodate the grievor.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued an order for the production of the grievor's Disability Accommodation File to the employer's counsel, who must share the documents with the union's counsel.

The documents are subject to a strict confidentiality order and may only be used for the purposes of the litigation.

The Grievor, a Plant Service Person, was terminated after a baggie containing marijuana flakes and a strong odour of marijuana were discovered in the employer-issued vehicle he had just finished using.

The Employer relied entirely on circumstantial evidence, as no drug test was administered and the baggie's contents were not tested.

The Union grieved the termination, arguing the investigation was flawed and the evidence insufficient.

The Arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that on a balance of probabilities, the circumstantial evidence established the Grievor possessed and consumed marijuana at work.

Given the safety-sensitive nature of the position and the Grievor's failure to acknowledge wrongdoing, termination was deemed an appropriate penalty.

The grievor, a registered nurse, alleged that the employer improperly deducted a full two hours of Compensation Time Off (CTO) credits for WSIB-approved absences, rather than the 15% top-up amount required to supplement the 85% WSIB reimbursement.

Following an expedited mediation/arbitration process, the arbitrator reviewed the relevant records and determined that the employer had correctly allocated the appropriate amount of CTO credits to top up the grievor's wages.

The grievance was dismissed.

The union filed three grievances alleging violations of the collective agreement.

At the hearing, the union withdrew the first grievance with prejudice, and the parties agreed to consolidate the second and third grievances.

The arbitrator issued a procedural order setting timelines for the provision of particulars, production, and the drafting of an agreed statement of facts, and scheduled the matter to proceed on the merits.

The union filed grievances on behalf of a correctional officer and canine handler, alleging the employer violated the collective agreement by using outside agencies to conduct canine searches at correctional institutions in the Northern Region.

The arbitrator found that while canine searches are bargaining unit work, they have not been exclusively performed by bargaining unit members.

Given the regular practice of using outside agencies for this work in the Northern Region, the employer did not breach the implied prohibition against assigning bargaining unit work outside the unit.

The grievances were dismissed.

The grievor, a correctional officer, was issued a 10-day suspension after an investigation found he entered a unit alone without backup and left a door unlocked while responding to an inmate assault.

The union grieved the discipline.

In an expedited mediation/arbitration, the arbitrator found the 10-day suspension excessive and reduced it to a 2-day suspension, citing mitigating factors including the grievor's lack of prior discipline, his intent to assist the assaulted inmate, and his acknowledgment of misconduct.

The grievor, a Black man employed as a Correctional Officer, alleged that the Employer engaged in systemic discrimination, harassment, and reprisal, preventing his career advancement.

He cited several incidents, including unsuccessful applications for management positions, a disciplinary meeting regarding an email he sent, a scheduling error, and an investigation into preferential treatment of an inmate.

The Grievance Settlement Board found it lacked jurisdiction over the management position competitions.

Regarding the other incidents, the Board concluded there was no direct or circumstantial evidence that the grievor's race was a factor in the Employer's actions.

The grievance was denied.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss a grievance filed by a correctional officer, arguing it was barred by a Memorandum of Settlement (MOS) signed in 2019 for five other grievances.

The employer relied on a broad release clause in the MOS that discharged all claims arising out of the grievor's employment up to the date of the agreement.

The union argued the release clause should be read in the context of the specific grievances listed in the MOS.

The arbitrator upheld the employer's motion, finding the plain language of the release clause clearly intended to release all grievances up to the date of the MOS, including the instant grievance which pre-dated the settlement.

The union sought to explain the grievor's failure to attend a scheduled hearing, stating she had been hospitalized.

The employer objected to accepting this assertion without supporting medical documentation.

The union requested that the matter be relisted or, alternatively, that further time be provided to obtain the medical documentation, noting difficulties in contacting the grievor.

The arbitrator found that the asserted hospitalization would provide an adequate explanation if proven, and granted an extension to December 23, 2025, for the union to provide the required documentation, failing which the deemed termination would take effect.

In a production dispute regarding the calculation of damages following a successful discharge grievance, the employer sought documentation relating to the grievor's alternate employment during the mitigation period.

The employer requested Records of Employment (ROEs), letters of offer, and documentation regarding the termination of any jobs held during the mitigation period.

The arbitrator ordered the union to produce the ROEs and letters of offer, as they were arguably relevant to the grievor's duty to mitigate.

However, the arbitrator denied the request for termination documentation, finding that litigating the reasons for the grievor's departure from third-party employers would be disproportionate, potentially prejudicial, and inconsistent with the Board's mandate to resolve disputes efficiently.

At a case management hearing, the parties confirmed that one of the two grievances filed on behalf of the grievor had been settled.

The arbitrator noted that she was no longer seized of the settled grievance.

For the remaining active grievance regarding the conversion of a fixed-term position to a regular position, the arbitrator issued a procedural order setting deadlines for the employer to provide production and for the union to provide full particulars ahead of the scheduled hearing on the merits.

The Union sought a further order for production of documents related to grievances alleging breaches of the Employer's duty to accommodate the Grievor's medical restrictions.

The Employer did not object to the order.

The Arbitrator directed the Employer to produce the Grievor's entire personnel file and all documents pertaining to the injury and accommodation by November 21, 2025.

The employer brought a motion to dismiss a grievance alleging workplace harassment on a preliminary basis, arguing it disclosed no prima facie case.

The grievor, a psychologist, alleged that the employer's repeated failure to respond to his inquiries regarding his classification and salary protection, and directing him to cease contacting Human Resources, constituted harassment.

The arbitrator found that, assuming the facts alleged were true, the employer's course of conduct could reasonably be seen as unwelcome and vexatious, establishing a viable case of workplace harassment.

The motion to dismiss was denied, and the grievance was allowed to proceed, with the exception of allegations regarding statements made by employer counsel at the OLRB, which were protected by absolute privilege.

Two correctional officers grieved five-day suspensions issued for an incident involving an inmate during a strip search.

The employer alleged the officers used excessive force by striking the inmate in the face and subsequently submitted false Use of Force Occurrence Reports to justify their actions, claiming the inmate was attempting suicide by ingesting drugs.

After reviewing video evidence, the arbitrator found the video did not support the officers' claims that the inmate ingested anything, and concluded the strikes were unnecessary and excessive.

The arbitrator also found the officers' reports were fundamentally inconsistent with the video and failed to mention that both officers had struck the inmate.

The grievances were dismissed and the suspensions upheld.

The grievor, a correctional officer with over thirty years of discipline-free service, received a three-day suspension for failing to file a Use of Force Occurrence Report following an incident involving an inmate.

The arbitrator found that the grievor did not witness the most serious use of force and that a superior officer had explicitly told other involved officers not to file reports.

The grievance was upheld, and the suspension was substituted with a coaching letter.