OGSB 2025

The Union filed grievances concerning the interpretation of clause 18.1.1(b) of the 2015-17 Central Working Conditions and Employee Benefits Collective Agreement, which determines the continuous service date for fixed-term employees converting to regular status.

The Union argued that a newly added second paragraph applied to all fixed-term employees, relying on bargaining history and prior interpretations.

The Employer maintained that the clear language of the provision restricted its application to full-time fixed-term employees.

The Arbitrator dismissed the grievances, finding that the ordinary and grammatical meaning of 'full-time fixed-term employees' restricted the provision to that specific group, and that the Union failed to establish a shared understanding to the contrary during negotiations.

The Association filed a grievance alleging the Employer breached the collective agreement by denying the complainant's request for an alternative work arrangement (AWA) to work remotely five days per week.

The Association argued the manager's discretion was fettered by a blanket three-day in-office rule imposed by the Employer.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the manager genuinely exercised her discretion in good faith by considering the complainant's individual circumstances and the operational viability of the unit, rather than rigidly applying a blanket rule.

The union filed a grievance alleging the employer violated the collective agreement and the Occupational Health and Safety Act by unilaterally changing the fire-retardant clothing provided to inspectors.

The grievor argued the new insulated coveralls were less comfortable and harder to use than the previous lightweight coveralls and winter jacket.

The Arbitrator dismissed the health and safety claims, finding the new clothing provided adequate protection and the grievor's concerns were based on preference rather than safety.

However, the Arbitrator found the employer violated article 9.4 of the collective agreement by changing the established practice regarding apparel without consulting or reaching an agreement with the union.

A declaration of breach was issued.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued a procedural decision adjourning a scheduled hearing and setting a new date for case management.

The Employer was directed to make best efforts to provide requested particulars and documents, and to review outstanding production requests.

The Union was ordered to provide particulars regarding the nature of the continuing breach alleged in the 2018 grievance.

The union grieved a 5-day suspension issued to a correctional officer for failing to properly supervise inmates, including allowing them to serve their own meals and congregate in cells.

The employer argued the discipline was reasonable given the safety risks.

The arbitrator found that while the misconduct was serious, the employer failed to give sufficient weight to mitigating factors, including the grievor's clean disciplinary record, immediate remorse, and the fact that he was distracted by an unruly inmate during the shift.

The grievance was allowed in part, and the suspension was reduced to 3 days.

Five grievors were terminated by Metrolinx for engaging in workplace sexual harassment contrary to the employer's policy.

The union grieved the terminations.

Following an earlier arbitration award that was quashed by the Divisional Court and upheld by the Court of Appeal, the matter was remitted to a new arbitrator.

Proceeding via mediation-arbitration under section 50 of the Labour Relations Act, the arbitrator found the grievors' conduct egregious and deserving of significant discipline.

However, considering their apologies, regret, and seniority, the arbitrator concluded termination was excessive and ordered reinstatement with four- and five-week suspensions substituted.

The grievor, a correctional officer, was issued a five-day suspension following the death of an inmate.

The employer alleged the grievor failed to seek medical assistance for the inmate and submitted an inaccurate occurrence report.

The arbitrator found the employer was justified in disciplining the grievor but reduced the suspension to three days, noting the grievor's limited contact with the inmate, his acknowledgment of his errors, and his lack of prior discipline.

The union grieved a 3-day suspension issued to a correctional officer following a physical altercation with an inmate.

The employer imposed the discipline on the basis that the grievor used excessive force and submitted inaccurate occurrence reports, as the CCTV footage contradicted his narrative.

The arbitrator found that while the inmate initiated the physical altercation, the grievor could have extricated himself from the situation and his action in approaching the inmate directly led to the altercation.

The arbitrator also accepted that the grievor's reports were inaccurate.

The grievance was dismissed.

During a grievance arbitration, the parties held a conference call to discuss issues regarding the production of the grievor's medical records.

The parties agreed to terms for the production of files from several doctors and requested that the agreement be issued as a consent order.

The Arbitrator issued the consent order, requiring the union to make best efforts to produce the specified medical records by October 31, 2025, subject to certain conditions regarding confidentiality and relevance.

The Union filed a grievance on behalf of an employee.

At the hearing, counsel advised the arbitrator of a related grievance scheduled for arbitration before a different arbitrator.

The arbitrator directed that the present grievance be listed for hearing on the same date with the related grievance, and noted that counsel for the Employer would contact Union counsel to discuss consolidation and the hearing process.

The Union requested an adjournment of the grievance arbitration hearing to obtain a medical opinion regarding the grievor's cognitive capacity to assist in preparing particulars and participating in the proceedings.

The Employer did not oppose a short adjournment, though it reserved its right to bring preliminary motions to dismiss the grievances.

The Arbitrator granted the adjournment, directing the Union to obtain the medical opinion by December 15, 2025, before scheduling a conference call to determine next steps.

The union sought an adjournment of the grievance arbitration hearing after the grievor failed to appear.

The union noted recent difficulties in contacting the grievor and could not explain the absence.

The employer agreed to allow a time-limited opportunity for an explanation.

The arbitrator ruled that the grievance would be dismissed in 30 days unless the union provided details of the reasons for the grievor's failure to attend, subject to the employer's review and potential hearing on the sufficiency of those reasons.

The employer requested particulars regarding two grievances scheduled for hearing.

During a conference call, the parties agreed that an order for full particulars and disclosure was necessary to ensure an expeditious hearing.

The arbitrator ordered the union to provide full particulars by October 24, 2025, and the employer to respond and provide production by November 28, 2025.

The union grieved the termination of the grievor's employment for alleged job abandonment.

Following mediation sessions, the parties agreed to a process for litigating the grievance using an Agreed Statement of Fact and Will-Say Statements.

The arbitrator issued a case management direction setting out the schedule for pre-hearing production, document delivery, and future hearing dates.

The union filed a grievance alleging violations of the collective agreement.

The employer raised preliminary objections regarding the timeliness of the grievance and whether it presented a prima facie breach.

The arbitrator issued a scheduling order directing the union to produce medical documentation and an outline of the grievor's anticipated viva voce evidence, and set a hearing date for the preliminary objections.

The grievor, a Court and Client Representative, suffered a non-work-related concussion and was off work for over two years.

Upon her return, the parties agreed to a graduated return-to-work plan.

When the grievor struggled to progress with new duties, the employer paused her hour increases and requested an Independent Medical Examination (IME).

The grievor resisted the IME for several months.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that the employer acted in good faith, provided extensive support, and was justified in requiring the IME to understand the grievor's medical restrictions and prognosis.

The employer fully satisfied its duty to accommodate.

The parties met to attempt to mediate a settlement of the grievance.

They agreed to continuation dates in April and May 2026 and established a timetable for the exchange of documents, particulars, and preliminary arguments.

The arbitrator issued a decision formalizing the agreed-upon case management schedule.

The grievor, a fixed-term Corrections Officer, applied for and accepted a roll-over to a regular classified position at a different institution.

The expression of interest clearly stated that successful applications were final and binding.

The grievor subsequently decided he did not want the new position and wished to return to his previous fixed-term role.

To do so, he signed a Memorandum of Agreement and resigned from the regular position, which resulted in a break in service and the loss of his accumulated seniority.

The union grieved, alleging the grievor signed the MOA under duress.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding no evidence of duress and concluding that the grievor's voluntary resignation properly triggered a break in service under the collective agreement.

The grievor, a fixed-term correctional officer, applied for and was accepted into a regular (classified) position at another facility.

The expression of interest clearly stated that successful applications were final and binding.

The grievor later decided he did not want the new position and wished to return to his previous fixed-term role.

To do so, he signed a Memorandum of Agreement and resigned from the regular position, which resulted in a break in service and the resetting of his seniority to zero.

The union grieved, alleging the agreement was signed under duress and the loss of seniority violated the collective agreement.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding no duress and that the grievor's voluntary resignation properly triggered a break in service under the collective agreement.

The parties met to mediate a settlement of a grievance but were unsuccessful.

The arbitrator issued a procedural direction establishing timelines for the union to provide particulars and production, and for the employer to respond and raise any preliminary objections.

The employer reserved the right to move for dismissal if the union fails to comply with the order.