Grievance Settlement Board

The parties engaged in a Med/Arb process to resolve outstanding overtime grievances at various institutions.

Following a hearing on December 7, 2023, the Arbitrator issued a decision without reasons, as agreed by the parties, detailing the disposition of 23 individual overtime grievances.

Several grievances were upheld with specific hours of overtime awarded, while others were dismissed.

The Employer moved to bifurcate the hearing to address a preliminary objection to the Grievance Settlement Board's jurisdiction, arguing that the Union's withdrawal of two earlier grievances on the same issue precluded the current grievance.

The Union opposed bifurcation, arguing that the factual history surrounding the prior withdrawals was complex and relevant to both the preliminary objection and the merits.

The Arbitrator denied the motion to bifurcate, finding that the Employer failed to establish that deciding the preliminary issue first would result in substantial savings of time and resources, given the factual disputes about the parties' understandings when the prior grievances were withdrawn.

The union grieved the employer's decision to limit remote work to a maximum of three days per week upon the return to the workplace following the COVID-19 pandemic.

The union argued this blanket rule violated the collective agreement by fettering the discretion of local managers to approve alternative work arrangements (AWAs) for up to four days of remote work, which had been the previously announced office standard.

The arbitrator found that while establishing an office standard is a valid exercise of management rights, the employer's memos effectively directed managers not to consider requests for AWAs in excess of the three-day remote work standard.

This constituted an improper fettering of the managers' obligation under the collective agreement to consider AWA requests in good faith.

The grievance was allowed, and the employer was ordered to advise managers to consider such requests in good faith, though the arbitrator declined to order the implementation of a four-day remote work standard.

The grievor, a Maintenance Mechanic with the LCBO, filed a grievance alleging that the employer violated the collective agreement and the Attendance Management Programme by placing him in the programme.

The parties agreed to an expedited mediation/arbitration process without precedential value or written reasons.

The arbitrator found no breach of the collective agreement or the programme and dismissed the grievance.

The employer brought a preliminary motion challenging the arbitrator's jurisdiction to hear a grievance regarding the effective date of a collective agreement.

The employer argued that the Treasury Board Secretariat's statutory authority to ratify Crown agency collective agreements was outside the arbitrator's jurisdiction.

The arbitrator dismissed the motion, finding that the core dispute concerned the interpretation of the phrase 'date of ratification' within the collective agreement, which falls squarely within an arbitrator's exclusive jurisdiction under section 48(1) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

A correctional officer filed a grievance alleging the employer breached the collective agreement, the Occupational Health and Safety Act, and the Mandatory Blood Testing Act by failing to forward completed forms to the public health unit within seven days of an incident where he was exposed to an inmate's bodily fluids.

The employer argued that its duty was fulfilled by providing the forms to the officer immediately, and that the Act places the responsibility of filing the forms on the affected officer.

The arbitrator found no breach of the grievor's rights and dismissed the grievance without written reasons, as requested by the parties.

The union grieved a three-day suspension imposed on a correctional officer for failing to wear safety goggles on three separate occasions during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The employer discovered the infractions incidentally while reviewing CCTV footage for contact tracing purposes.

The arbitrator held that the use of CCTV for contact tracing was a legitimate safety measure under the collective agreement, and that incidental observations of misconduct could be used for discipline.

The arbitrator rejected arguments that the employer condoned the behaviour or failed to apply progressive discipline, finding that the health and safety risks justified the penalty.

The grievance was dismissed.

In a grievance arbitration under the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act, the employer advised it had not received fulsome particulars and production from the union.

The arbitrator ordered the union to provide particulars, production, and any medical documentation by April 2, 2024, and to request production from the employer.

The employer was ordered to provide full production by May 3, 2024, and the union to provide the grievor's will-say statement by June 3, 2024.

The scheduled hearing date was adjourned.

The employer brought a motion to dismiss a grievance alleging failure to take reasonable precautions regarding Covid-19 safety for lack of a prima facie case.

The union brought a motion to consolidate a third grievance regarding improper pay with two already consolidated grievances.

The Arbitrator dismissed the employer's motion, finding the union's particulars regarding differential treatment in PCR testing and close contact protocols sufficient to proceed to a hearing.

The Arbitrator allowed the union's motion to consolidate, finding that the pay grievance arose out of the same series of incidents as the accommodation grievance and should be heard together for efficiency.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of the grievor regarding an unsuccessful application for a permanent full-time position.

The parties reached a settlement agreement in principle, which included a wage increase.

The grievor subsequently negotiated a higher wage rate directly with the employer but then refused to sign the modified Minutes of Settlement.

The employer sought to enforce the agreement with the higher wage rate.

The arbitrator found that a binding agreement was reached and directed its implementation, including the employer's subsequent commitment to the further wage increase.

The grievor filed a grievance claiming she was short-paid for sick days in January 2023.

Shortly after filing, the employer corrected the payroll error and paid the outstanding amount.

The grievor continued to seek damages equivalent to 12 hours of regular pay for the inconvenience caused by the delay.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that the employer's local payroll had promptly submitted the correct information and the delay was caused by a mistake at Ontario Shared Services, which did not warrant an award of damages.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of a cook who received a three-day suspension for allegedly putting pineapple on a special diet pizza for a youth with a severe allergy.

The employer relied on a brief occurrence report written by the grievor, who was unsophisticated and wrote it without knowing the full details of the incident.

The arbitrator found that another employee had prepared the special diet pizzas and that the grievor had only worked on regular pizzas.

The arbitrator concluded the employer failed to prove just cause on a balance of probabilities, upheld the grievance, and ordered the suspension removed from the grievor's record with full compensation.

The grievor, a Youth Services Officer, filed a grievance claiming entitlement to call back pay after receiving a telephone call from a manager outside of his scheduled working hours.

The manager called to inform the grievor that his accommodation request had been approved.

The union argued the call constituted a call back to work under the collective agreement.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that the call was merely to inform the grievor of the accommodation approval and did not involve the performance of work-related tasks.

The union filed grievances challenging the employer's process for posting and filling a Product Consultant position, alleging the successful candidate did not meet the minimum qualifications.

The employer conceded that the process violated the collective agreement and did not resist the usual remedy of rerunning the competition.

However, at the grievors' request, the arbitrator issued a declaration that the employer violated the collective agreement but declined to order the competition to be rerun.

In a remedial claim arising from a prior decision, the Grievance Settlement Board ordered the employer to pay a meal allowance expense of $32.60 to each of the 46 grievors.

The decision was issued on a without prejudice and precedent basis and without reasons, pursuant to Article 22.16 of the Collective Agreement.

In a grievance arbitration concerning the termination of a correctional officer, the parties requested an order to ensure readiness for the next hearing date after unsuccessful mediation efforts.

The Arbitrator issued a production order directing the Union to provide particulars by January 15, 2024, and both parties to exchange any outstanding production by January 30, 2024.

The parties agreed on consent to an order regarding the disclosure of the grievor's medical file.

The Union and the Grievor are required to produce all arguably relevant medical records, subject to strict confidentiality conditions limiting disclosure to Employer counsel, specific instructing clients, and necessary witnesses, solely for the purpose of the arbitration.

Following a prior decision declaring the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation a paid holiday in 2022, the parties disputed the method of calculating retroactive entitlements, interest, and payment timelines.

The Arbitrator issued procedural directions establishing a timetable for the Employer to provide principles for retroactive entitlements and interest, and for the Union to respond, with a further hearing scheduled if the parties cannot agree.

The union filed a policy grievance challenging the employer's decision to contract out work at a rail maintenance facility.

The employer brought a preliminary motion arguing that the union improperly expanded the scope of the grievance, that the allegations were premature, and that allegations regarding layoffs and terminations could not be pursued as a policy grievance under Article 4.5 of the collective agreement.

The arbitrator held that Article 4.5 precluded the union from pursuing the layoff and termination allegations as a policy grievance because they directly affected identifiable employees who could file individual grievances.

However, the arbitrator dismissed the employer's arguments regarding the scope of the grievance and prematurity, finding that the union's allegations about 'contracting in' and the timing of the announcement were inherent to the original grievance and that the matter was ripe for adjudication.

The grievor, a Correctional Officer, was placed on an unpaid leave of absence for three months after providing medical documentation outlining extensive restrictions.

The Union grieved the Employer's failure to accommodate.

The Employer raised a preliminary objection regarding the timeliness of the grievance.

The Arbitrator allowed the late filing due to the grievor's poor mental health at the time and the lack of prejudice to the Employer.

On the merits, the Arbitrator found that the Employer failed to fulfill its duty to accommodate the grievor to the point of undue hardship, as it did not advise her of any accommodation efforts or its inability to accommodate her before placing her on unpaid leave.

The grievance was upheld, and the Employer was ordered to pay lost wages for the period of the unpaid leave.