OGSB 2025

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

They agreed to continuation dates in April 2026 and a case management schedule, including the use of 'will say' statements instead of viva voce evidence in chief.

The arbitrator issued a decision recording the agreed-upon timetable for the exchange of documents, particulars, and will say statements.

During an arbitration hearing, the Grievance Settlement Board directed the union and the employer to hold a meeting within 60 days to discuss the implementation and operationalization of time out of cell requirements under the Segregation Review and Oversight policy.

The Board ordered that no specific individual grievances or discipline be discussed at the meeting, and that neither party is permitted to bring counsel.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of a Probation and Parole Officer who claimed he was misinformed by his manager about his eligibility for a vacant position and was therefore improperly denied consideration.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that under the applicable Memorandum of Agreement, the grievor was required to submit an Expression of Interest to be considered for the vacancy.

Because the grievor failed to submit an Expression of Interest, the employer was not obliged to consider him, regardless of any misinformation provided by the manager.

The grievance was dismissed.

The Union filed a grievance on behalf of several individuals.

Two of the grievors failed to attend the scheduled video hearing despite being aware of the time and date.

The Arbitrator ordered the absent grievors to provide reasons for their non-attendance to Union counsel by a specified date.

If no explanation is provided, the grievance will be deemed dismissed as it pertains to them.

If reasons are provided, the Employer will review them and advise whether it is satisfied or seeks dismissal.

The Union filed group grievances challenging the Employer's new requirement that Employment Standards Officers work in-person a minimum of three days per week, limiting remote work to two days.

The Union argued this was an unreasonable workplace rule under the KVP standard, while the Employer maintained it was an unfettered exercise of management rights.

The Arbitrator dismissed the grievances, finding that even if the KVP reasonableness standard applied, the three-day in-person requirement was reasonable as it was rationally connected to the Employer's legitimate business objectives of ensuring consistency across regions and fostering team culture, belonging, and mentorship.

The parties met before the Grievance Settlement Board regarding three grievances.

As previously agreed-upon prehearing steps were not completed, the Arbitrator issued a case direction outlining a new schedule for the union to provide particulars and production requests, and for the employer to respond and advise of any preliminary motions.

The union filed a group grievance in 2023 alleging that the employer violated the collective agreement when it reclassified the grievors and red-circled their salaries in 2014.

The employer brought a motion to dismiss the grievance for delay.

The arbitrator found that the nine-year delay was substantial and that prejudice to the employer could be presumed.

The arbitrator declined to extend the time limits and dismissed the grievance.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued a consent order directing the employer to produce documents to the union.

The ordered production included correspondence, notes, and investigation reports regarding a complaint against the grievor, as well as documents and the investigation report concerning the grievor's WDHP complaint against the complainant.

The order was made without prejudice to future production requests.

The employer brought a motion to dismiss several grievances, alleging the grievor abused the arbitration process through hearing delays, cancellations, and failing to attend a scheduled hearing on time.

The Grievance Settlement Board reviewed the history of the proceedings and found that the delays and cancellations were due to various administrative issues, illness, and changes in counsel, rather than the grievor's conduct.

Regarding the missed hearing, an agreed statement of facts confirmed the grievor did not receive notice of the hearing until after it had commenced.

The motion to dismiss for abuse of process was denied.

The Employer brought a preliminary motion to strike certain particulars filed by the Union in relation to five grievances alleging harassment and discrimination based on disability.

The Employer argued the particulars should be struck based on a prior settlement, the 'three-year rule', and res judicata/abuse of process due to a prior arbitration decision by Arbitrator Leighton.

The Arbitrator granted the motion, striking paragraph 7 as it was barred by a prior settlement release.

The Arbitrator also struck the remaining disputed particulars, finding they either violated the three-year rule or constituted an abuse of process because they related to matters that were or ought to have been raised in the prior arbitration.

Three correctional officers filed grievances alleging that a senior co-worker engaged in a long-term pattern of workplace violence, bullying, and harassment, including repeatedly threatening them with a knife.

The employer investigated, substantiated the allegations, and terminated the co-worker, who then grieved his dismissal.

In this preliminary decision on the facts, the arbitrator found the complainants' evidence credible despite the delay in reporting, which was attributed to the correctional 'Code of Silence'.

The arbitrator concluded on a balance of probabilities that the co-worker did carry a knife in the institution and had threatened the grievors with it on multiple occasions.

The union filed a grievance alleging the employer breached the collective agreement and the Human Rights Code by placing the grievor on an unpaid leave of absence for failing to comply with its mandatory Covid-19 vaccination policy.

The grievor objected to the vaccine on religious grounds but deliberately chose not to apply for an exemption because he believed he should not have to share his religious beliefs with the employer.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that the employer's duty to accommodate was not triggered because the grievor failed to make his need for a religious exemption known.

The Association grieved that an employee's benefit dispute was improperly processed as a civil suit against the insurance administrator rather than through the collective agreement's dispute resolution procedure.

The parties reached a tentative settlement but disagreed on whether the Employer must disclose the civil suit settlement document to the Association.

The Employer argued the document was irrelevant and protected by settlement privilege.

The Arbitrator ordered production, finding the document was central to the grievance and that the 'public good' exception to settlement privilege applied, as the Association had a right to verify the facts of the alleged breach of the collective agreement.

The Union filed a grievance alleging the Employer failed to accommodate the grievor by not returning him to work in a timely fashion.

During the proceedings, the Union sought disclosure of all documents in the Employer's possession relating to a specific WSIB claim.

The Arbitrator ordered the Employer to produce the requested documents no later than 30 days before the next scheduled hearing date.

In a grievance alleging failure to accommodate by not returning the grievor to work in a timely fashion, the Employer sought disclosure of the grievor's doctor's clinical notes.

The grievor consented to the disclosure.

The doctor provided redacted notes.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the doctor to produce a full and unredacted copy of her clinical notes to Union counsel within 30 days, failing which a Summons Duces Tecum may be issued.

The Union grieved the Employer's assignment of Seasonal Warehouse Workers to backfill shortages created by absent Operations Clerks at the LCBO's Durham Warehouse.

The parties agreed to bifurcate liability and remedy, submitting sample issues for determination.

The Arbitrator found that assigning a Seasonal Warehouse Worker to perform Clerk work on an overtime basis without first offering it to permanent full-time Clerks violated the Overtime Equalization Agreement.

However, assigning a Seasonal Warehouse Worker to backfill a Clerk shift on straight time, even if it subsequently resulted in overtime for that worker or another Seasonal Warehouse Worker within their own classification, did not violate the collective agreement, as management retained the right to assign available regular hours efficiently.

The union filed three identical grievances alleging constructive dismissal due to changes made to the grievors' positions in 2020 and 2022.

The employer raised preliminary objections that the grievances were in substance classification grievances outside the Board's jurisdiction and were filed outside the 30-day time limit.

The Arbitrator upheld the preliminary objections, finding the grievances were classification grievances and were not continuing grievances.

The Arbitrator declined to extend the time limit and dismissed the grievances.

The Union filed two grievances alleging harassment and discrimination against a K9 handler by the Employer, including incidents following a medical leave and a dispute over the return of a work vehicle.

Following an unsuccessful mediation, the Arbitrator issued a case management decision setting a timeline for the exchange of particulars, production requests, and preliminary objections, and scheduled hearing dates for 2026.

The grievor failed to attend the scheduled arbitration hearing.

The union explained that the grievor had a history of mental health challenges and could not engage with the grievance process at the time.

The arbitrator adjourned the matter sine die, ordering the grievor to provide a suitable explanation and supporting medical documentation for her non-attendance by January 5, 2026.

If no explanation is provided, the parties will be invited to make submissions on whether the grievance should be dismissed.

The grievor, a bus driver, resigned from her employment after being mistakenly informed by the employer that her probationary period was being extended.

She sent a resignation email while in a state of severe emotional distress and later slept for several hours, missing the second half of her split shift.

The next day, she sought to rescind her resignation, but the employer refused.

The arbitrator upheld the grievance, finding that the grievor lacked a continuing objective intent to resign because her actions were heavily influenced by emotional upset caused by the employer's error.

The resignation was deemed invalid.