OGSB 2025

The union filed a grievance on behalf of a fixed-term Correctional Officer who claimed he should have been rolled over to regular classified status earlier than the employer determined, seeking damages.

Following a review of the grievor's straight-time hours, the parties agreed that he qualified for roll-over on April 15, 2024, and that no damages were owed.

The parties further agreed to adjust the grievor's Continuous Service Date to November 18, 2018.

The arbitrator issued a decision reflecting this agreement.

The union grieved a seven-day suspension imposed on the grievor for smoking while in the company of an inmate on a temporary absence pass.

The matter proceeded through the 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 Union filed a grievance alleging the Employer violated the collective agreement and the Ontario Human Rights Code by failing to offer off-season work to a seasonal Sawmill Interpreter.

The Employer raised a preliminary objection, arguing the grievance failed to disclose a prima facie case.

The Arbitrator dismissed the preliminary objection in part, finding the particulars supported an arguable claim of a collective agreement breach and discrimination based on perceived disability, but dismissed the claim of age discrimination.

The Union brought a grievance regarding a competition for an excluded position.

The Employer indicated it would argue the Board lacks jurisdiction, but would do so during the merits hearing rather than as a preliminary objection.

The Arbitrator directed the Employer to produce all arguably relevant materials to the Union by specified dates and scheduled further hearing dates for the merits of the case.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of a cook who worked 22 two-hour after-hours assignments to provide meals for an inmate observing Ramadan.

The employer paid four hours of call back pay for the first assignment and two hours of regular overtime for the remaining 21.

The union argued all 22 assignments should be compensated as call backs under the collective agreement.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that the 21 assignments were pre-arranged overtime, not call backs, because the grievor was not called back to work after leaving the workplace.

The union grieved that the employer violated the collective agreement by scheduling investigation or grievance meetings on the grievor's scheduled day off.

The employer argued that the relevant provisions only ensure employees do not lose money if required to attend meetings, and that the grievor had not lost pay or time.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that the collective agreement does not prohibit the employer from scheduling a meeting on a specific union representative's regular day off.

The Union filed grievances alleging that the Employer violated the collective agreement, community escort agreements, and the Provincial Overtime Protocol by assigning 'secure-to-secure' inmate transfer work to correctional officers from institutions other than the one where the inmate was originally housed.

The Arbitrator dismissed the grievances, finding that an inmate being transferred is not in the custody of either the sending or receiving institution, but rather in the custody of the transferring officers.

The Arbitrator concluded that the Employer's management right to assign transfer work to any correctional institution is unfettered by the escort agreements, the overtime protocol, or the correctional officer job description.

In a grievance arbitration, the parties sought a direction regarding the production of certain documents by the Employer.

The Arbitrator directed the Employer to produce unredacted copies of a forensic investigation report and an anonymous disclosure of wrongdoing to Union counsel.

The production was ordered subject to strict confidentiality conditions, including that the documents only be used for the purposes of the proceeding and be returned or destroyed at its conclusion.

The Employer moved to strike portions of two union grievances concerning health and safety issues at a correctional facility, arguing issue estoppel and collateral attack.

The grievances arose after correctional officers initiated work refusals due to inmates possessing makeshift weapons.

Ministry of Labour inspectors had investigated the work refusals, determined there was no right to refuse, and declined to issue orders.

The Arbitrator found that the inspectors' decisions finally determined the health and safety issues under the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

Allowing the grievances to proceed on those issues would constitute an impermissible collateral attack on the inspectors' decisions.

The Employer's motion was allowed.

In a grievance concerning the non-renewal of a fixed term Corrections Officer's contract due to availability issues, the Union sought production of schedules and warning letters for 10 other fixed term employees.

The Union argued this would show whether the grievor was treated differently.

The Arbitrator denied the request, finding the documents were not arguably relevant because the Union's particulars alleged discrimination based on disability and failure to accommodate, not differential treatment compared to other employees.

The request improperly sought to discover a case not asserted.

The employer requested an order compelling the union to provide written particulars and production, as the union had not complied with a prior undertaking to do so by March 21, 2025.

The union did not oppose the request.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the union to provide its written particulars and full production no later than May 14, 2025.

Following a case conference call, the Arbitrator issued procedural orders scheduling further hearing dates for the grievance.

The Union was directed to provide a statement of particulars and respond to production requests by a specified date, with the Employer reserving the right to seek dismissal if deadlines are missed.

The parties convened for a grievance arbitration regarding a seven-day suspension.

After unsuccessful mediation, the parties agreed on procedural steps to manage hearing time efficiently, including the use of Will-Say statements for the employer's witnesses.

The arbitrator recorded the parties' agreements and scheduled continuation dates for the hearing.

During an adjournment of a grievance arbitration, the parties met with the arbitrator to discuss ongoing requests for the exchange of production.

The employer agreed to provide the union with the grievor's WDHP, disability accommodation, and corporate medical files by a specified date.

The union agreed to disclose the grievor's medical file for a specific period, subject to strict confidentiality conditions restricting its use and dissemination.

The arbitrator issued an order reflecting these agreements and scheduled the next hearing date.

The Employer raised preliminary objections to two grievances filed by the Union on behalf of the grievor, arguing they were barred by res judicata, functus officio, and disclosed no prima facie case.

The grievances alleged improper deductions, failure to provide amended T4s following retroactive WSIB payments, and harassment related to a civil claim by the benefits provider.

The arbitrator found that the financial issues raised in the grievances had either been expressly addressed in prior decisions between the parties or ought to have been raised during those proceedings.

The remaining allegation that the employment relationship was destroyed and warranted severance pay lacked a prima facie case, as the grievor remained on WSIB leave and no facts supported a Human Rights Code violation.

The preliminary objections were upheld and the grievances were dismissed.

The union grieved the employer's decision to deny the grievor's request to exit the Ontario Public Service under the Transition Exit Initiative (TEI).

The employer determined that the grievor's exit would not assist with the transformation of the public service and that there were no plans to reduce Verification Officer positions.

Applying established principles regarding the employer's broad discretion under Appendix 46 of the Collective Agreement, the arbitrator found no improper exercise of discretion and dismissed the grievance.

The grievor requested a 12-month leave of absence to pursue employment with a police service, which the employer granted.

Shortly after, the grievor applied to exit the Ontario Public Service under the Transition Exit Initiative (TEI).

The employer denied the request, determining the grievor was no longer eligible due to the approved leave, and instead granted TEI to a more junior employee.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the employer violated Appendix 46 of the collective agreement, which requires TEI determinations among eligible employees to be based on seniority.

The grievance was allowed, and the grievor was awarded the full TEI benefit.

The Union grieved the Employer's denial of the Grievor's request for the Transition Exit Initiative (TEI) under Appendix 46 of the Collective Agreement.

The Union argued that the decision-makers relied on irrelevant facts, pointing to an error made by a Director during a meeting.

The Arbitrator found that the Director's error was an innocent mistake and that the Grievor's actual position was properly considered.

The Arbitrator also found that the Grievor's position was not eliminated but converted and filled after his retirement.

Applying established principles regarding the Employer's broad discretion under Appendix 46, the Arbitrator concluded the discretion was properly exercised and dismissed the grievance.

The grievor, a Program Administrator, submitted a request for the Transition Exit Initiative (TEI) which was denied by the Employer.

The Union grieved the denial, arguing it was unfair and discriminatory as others had been approved.

The Employer maintained the grievor's position was required and no TEI applications had been granted since 2020.

The Arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that the Employer properly exercised its broad discretion under Appendix 46 of the Collective Agreement to determine whether an employee's exit supports the transformation of the public service.

The grievor, a Senior Auditor, applied for the Transition Exit Initiative (TEI) prior to his retirement.

The Employer denied the application, and the grievor challenged the fairness of the decision-making process.

The arbitrator found that the Employer properly exercised its broad discretion under Appendix 46 of the Collective Agreement, noting that TEI is not a general retirement allowance and the Employer had no plans to reduce positions in the grievor's office at the time.

The grievance was dismissed.