Grievance Settlement Board

The parties engaged in case management discussions regarding two grievances involving allegations of harassment, discrimination, unfair exercise of management rights, health and safety violations, and unfair discipline.

On consent, the arbitrator issued case management directions setting deadlines for the Union to provide particulars and productions, and for the Employer to respond and advise of any preliminary issues.

The grievor, a probationary employee terminated for allegedly violating the employer's Aeroplan Reward Miles Policy, failed to attend his scheduled termination grievance hearing.

The Board granted an adjournment to allow the grievor to provide an explanation for his absence.

When the grievor failed to respond to the Union's subsequent communications or provide any explanation by the Board's deadline, the Board concluded that the grievor no longer wished to pursue his grievance and dismissed it.

The parties appeared before the Grievance Settlement Board regarding two grievances.

On consent, the Union withdrew one grievance on a without prejudice basis.

The parties agreed to adjourn the scheduled hearing date and to hear the remaining grievance, along with two other grievances filed by the grievor, on a future date pursuant to the expedited procedure in Article 22.16 of the Collective Agreement.

The Union filed grievances on behalf of two Correctional Officers with medical restrictions, alleging the Employer breached its duty to accommodate by bypassing them for overtime opportunities on the night shift.

The Union argued the Employer should have accommodated the grievors by assigning them on an over-complement basis or by bundling duties to create viable overtime shifts.

The Arbitrator dismissed the grievances, finding that the Employer properly applied the Provincial Overtime Protocol, which included a mechanism for switching assignments to accommodate restrictions.

The Arbitrator held that the duty to accommodate does not require an employer to assign unproductive work or to create above-complement positions, particularly at premium overtime rates.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued a case management order scheduling hearing dates and setting deadlines for the exchange of documents, responses to proposed litigation scenarios, and the finalization of an agreed statement of facts between the union and the employer.

The Employer brought a motion to adjourn the remaining scheduled dates for an ongoing grievance arbitration hearing because its next witness, the grievor's former manager, was on parental leave.

The Association opposed the request.

The Arbitrator applied the established factors for granting an adjournment and found that while the Employer had a valid reason, the indefinite length of the requested adjournment and the prejudice to the grievor, who would have to continue working without the requested alternative work arrangement, outweighed the reasons for the delay.

The motion for an adjournment was denied.

The grievor failed to attend his scheduled termination grievance hearing despite receiving notice and confirming his intention to pursue the grievance with his union representative.

The employer requested that the grievance be dismissed.

The arbitrator directed the grievor to provide an explanation for his non-attendance to the union by a specified date, failing which the grievance would be dismissed.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to strike particulars relating to mental distress allegedly suffered by two grievors following discipline.

The employer argued that the medical opinions provided did not support the particulars and challenged the competency of the medical professionals.

The arbitrator dismissed the motion, finding that there was a prima facie case for unjust discipline which could form the basis of a claim for mental distress, and that the strength of the medical evidence and causal connection should be tested through the litigation process rather than on a preliminary motion.

The Union filed grievances on behalf of several employees who were denied enhanced benefits under the Transition Exit Initiative (TEI).

The Arbitrator applied principles established in earlier decisions, confirming that the Employer has broad discretion to approve or deny TEI requests based on whether the exit supports the transformation of the Ontario Public Service.

Finding no improper exercise of discretion, bad faith, or discrimination, the Arbitrator dismissed the grievances.

The Union filed multiple grievances on behalf of employees who applied for but were not approved to receive enhanced benefits under the Transition Exit Initiative (TEI) pursuant to Appendix 46 of the Collective Agreement.

The arbitrator applied principles established in earlier cases, confirming that the Employer retains broad discretion to determine whether granting a TEI request supports the transformation of the Ontario Public Service.

Finding no improper exercise of discretion, the arbitrator dismissed all the grievances.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of a fixed-term Youth Services Officer who was not considered for a rollover to a regular classified position.

The grievor had replied to an email from the Deputy Administrator to express his interest, but failed to read the Expression of Interest which explicitly directed applications to the Administrator.

The grievor also ignored an out-of-office reply directing him to the Administrator.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding the employer acted properly as the grievor failed to submit his application to the correct person.

Furthermore, the grievor lacked sufficient seniority to have been successful even if his application had been properly submitted.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of a fixed-term Youth Services Officer, alleging the employer failed to consider her for rollover into a regular position.

The employer had posted an Expression of Interest requiring applications to be emailed to the Administrator.

The grievor mistakenly replied to the Deputy Administrator's email and failed to read his out-of-office reply directing urgent matters to the Administrator.

Because the grievor did not submit her application to the correct person before the deadline, the employer was unaware of her interest.

The arbitrator found the employer did not act improperly and dismissed the grievance.

The Union filed multiple grievances regarding employees at the Toronto South Detention Centre who were sent home without pay for failing to submit negative Covid-19 rapid antigen test results prior to their shifts.

The Arbitrator ruled that employees who failed to submit results due to their own fault are entitled to 50% of their wages for the missed shift.

Employees who can demonstrate they took the test and attempted to submit the results, but were prevented by technological issues, are entitled to 100% of their wages, subject to providing required documentation within 60 days.

The parties met to mediate two grievances alleging discrimination based on disability and failure to accommodate, resulting in a loss of pay and vacation credits.

The parties determined that case management was necessary to facilitate mediation.

The arbitrator issued a case management decision outlining the agreed-upon schedule for the delivery of particulars, prehearing production, and preliminary motions leading up to the scheduled mediation.

The Association sought the production of documents in a consolidated grievance arbitration concerning remote work.

The grievors, Senior Program Administrators, worked remotely during the COVID-19 pandemic and subsequently sought Alternate Work Arrangements (AWAs).

The Arbitrator ordered the Employer to produce documents relating to AWA requests managed by a specific supervisor, the decision to make the position remote during the pandemic, and all internal communications and notes regarding the consideration of the complainants' AWA requests.

The grievor, a correctional officer, filed two grievances.

The first alleged the Employer breached the Collective Agreement by refusing to reimburse him for home security upgrades implemented after an inmate threatened him.

The second alleged the Employer breached a Memorandum of Settlement by housing the threatening inmate at his institution.

The arbitrator dismissed both grievances, noting that the security report stated upgrades were the homeowner's responsibility, and the Memorandum of Settlement explicitly permitted the inmate to be housed at the institution for required court attendances.

The grievor, a Fixed Term Correctional Officer, alleged that the Employer breached the Collective Agreement by unfairly applying a Memorandum of Agreement regarding temporary placements during a capital project at the North Bay Jail.

The grievor claimed his ability to progress in seniority was impaired.

The arbitrator found that the grievor never made a formal transfer request and that the employees who were transferred either went to institutions the grievor had not expressed interest in or had greater seniority than the grievor.

The grievance was dismissed as there was no breach of the MOA or the Collective Agreement.

The Union brought a request for production of documents, and the Employer brought preliminary motions regarding the scope of four active grievances and the arbitrability of one allegation.

The Arbitrator held that the scope of the grievances must be construed narrowly, limiting the evidence to the specific incidents set out in the grievance forms, given the contrast with a previously settled, broadly drafted grievance.

The Arbitrator found the grievor had standing to arbitrate an incident involving a coworker, as it could constitute harassment directed at the grievor.

Production of documents was ordered only to the extent they fell within the narrowed scope of the grievances, and requests for similar fact evidence and broad communications were denied to prevent a fishing expedition.

The union filed grievances on behalf of a fixed-term correctional officer, alleging her total hours worked were incorrectly calculated, which delayed her rollover into the regular service.

The employer acknowledged the miscalculation and agreed to roll the grievor over into the regular service effective October 14, 2024.

The sole outstanding issue was the determination of the grievor's Continuous Service Date (CSD).

The arbitrator directed the employer to record the grievor's CSD as May 10, 2019.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of a fixed-term correctional officer who claimed he resigned from his previous regular service position under duress to accept the fixed-term role, seeking to maintain his unbroken service.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the grievor chose to resign from his regular position to work as a fixed-term correctional officer, which resulted in the termination of his continuous service under the collective agreement.

The Board concluded there was no duress, as it was the grievor's choice, and dismissed the grievance.