Grievance Settlement Board

The grievor, a Correctional Officer, filed a grievance claiming the Employer failed to include his prior service with the Ministry of Natural Resources and as a regular Motor Vehicle Operator when calculating his Continuous Service Date.

The grievor had resigned from his regular position to accept a fixed-term Correctional Officer position.

The Arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that under the collective agreement, the grievor's resignation deemed his continuous service up to that point to have terminated, causing a break in service.

The grievor, a Fixed Term Registered Practical Nurse, filed a grievance alleging the Employer improperly awarded a rollover to a classified position to an employee with fewer hours.

The successful candidate had filed a timely dispute of her hours, resulting in a recalculation that placed her ahead of the grievor.

The grievor failed to dispute her hours until four weeks after the deadline.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding the grievor's dispute was untimely and her subsequent request for compensation for Correctional Officer training costs was unrelated and without legal basis.

The Employer requested an order that any grievors who do not respond to the Union's request for information by October 4, 2023, will have their grievances dismissed.

The Union did not oppose the request.

The Grievance Settlement Board granted the order on consent, appending a list of the affected grievances.

The employer brought a motion to enforce a settlement agreement regarding three grievances.

During mediation, the union made an offer to resolve the grievances and explicitly left it open.

The employer later accepted the offer and provided draft minutes of settlement.

The union advised that the grievor no longer agreed to the settlement.

The arbitrator found that the union's offer was left open and the employer's acceptance crystallized the agreement, creating a binding settlement from which the union could not withdraw.

The motion was granted and the agreed terms were ordered.

The grievor, a Correctional Officer, received a 5-day suspension for failing to complete security patrols and maintain a unit logbook during a period when an inmate was seriously assaulted.

The union argued that the unit was significantly short-staffed due to the COVID-19 pandemic and that the supervising sergeant had told officers to make do as best they could.

Three other officers involved received 3-day suspensions, with the employer justifying the grievor's longer suspension based on a lack of remorse.

The arbitrator found that while the employer had just cause to discipline the grievor and impose a more severe sanction than the others, the mitigating factors warranted reducing the penalty to a 3-day suspension.

The grievance was upheld in part.

The Grievor, a Correctional Officer, received a one-day suspension for allegedly engaging in 'Code of Silence' behaviour by failing to report a colleague's inappropriate use of force against an inmate.

The Employer relied solely on video evidence, which it claimed showed a female Officer placing her foot on the inmate's back.

The Arbitrator found the video lacked clarity and did not establish on a balance of probabilities that the alleged misconduct occurred.

The grievance was upheld, and the suspension was rescinded.

The grievor, a Correctional Officer, received a 3-day suspension for failing to complete required security rounds, during which an inmate was seriously assaulted.

The union grieved the discipline, arguing that severe short-staffing due to the COVID-19 pandemic was a significant mitigating factor.

The arbitrator found that while the employer had just cause to discipline the grievor, the mitigating factors warranted a reduction in the penalty.

The grievance was allowed in part, and the suspension was reduced to one day.

The union grieved a three-day suspension imposed on the grievor for alleged misconduct violating the LCBO Respectful Workplace Policy.

The matter proceeded as a mediation/arbitration.

The parties were unable to resolve the grievance and requested a decision.

The arbitrator found that discipline was warranted, the three-day suspension was appropriate, and the investigation and procedures were adequate.

The grievance was dismissed.

In advance of a discharge grievance hearing, the union requested the production of an investigation report and related materials.

The arbitrator ordered the employer to produce the investigation report, appendices, and non-privileged materials considered by the investigator.

The production was made subject to strict confidentiality conditions, including restrictions on copying, electronic distribution, and sharing with the grievor.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued a consent order consolidating multiple grievances under a single lead file number (GSB No. 2020-0572) on the agreement of the parties.

The parties agreed to consolidate multiple grievances under a single lead file number.

The arbitrator ordered the consolidation on consent and noted they were not seized of the matter.

The Union filed grievances on behalf of 11 employees who were denied enhanced benefits under the Transition Exit Initiative (TEI).

The Union argued that the Employer improperly exercised its discretion and discriminated against three grievors on Long Term Income Protection (LTIP) by denying their applications as a class.

The Arbitrator dismissed the grievances, finding that the Employer properly exercised its broad discretion under Appendix 46 of the Collective Agreement.

The Arbitrator also held that denying TEI to employees on LTIP did not violate the Ontario Human Rights Code, as they no longer held permanent positions that could be eliminated to prevent surplussing other employees, which is the core objective of the TEI program.

During the examination-in-chief of the grievor in a workplace harassment and discrimination arbitration, the grievor testified about three incidents not included in the union's statement of particulars.

The employer moved to strike this evidence.

The union argued the incidents were relevant to establishing the manager's animus toward the grievor.

The arbitrator dismissed the employer's motion, ruling that the union should be afforded the opportunity to adduce further evidence on these matters, with the employer given latitude to cross-examine.

The Union filed grievances on behalf of three employees regarding the operation of the Transition Exit Initiative (TEI) under the collective agreement.

Two grievors alleged the Employer improperly denied their requests to exit under the TEI, while the third alleged their approved enhanced benefits were not paid within a reasonable time.

Applying established principles regarding the Employer's broad discretion to approve TEI requests, the Arbitrator found the Employer properly exercised its discretion in denying the two requests and that the payments to the third grievor were made within a reasonable period.

The grievances were dismissed.

The employer brought a preliminary motion objecting to the Grievance Settlement Board's jurisdiction to hear two group grievances alleging harassment.

The employer argued that the union referred the grievances to arbitration prematurely, before the employer had the opportunity to hold a Formal Resolution Stage (FRS) meeting and issue a decision.

The arbitrator found that the employer failed to hold the mandatory FRS meeting within the 15-day time limit specified in the collective agreement.

Relying on prior Board jurisprudence, the arbitrator held that the employer's failure to hold the meeting within the mandatory time limit meant the grievance procedure had ended without a settlement, triggering the union's right to refer the grievances to arbitration.

The employer's preliminary motion was dismissed.

The Union sought production of a 'Workplace Culture Review' document in relation to grievances alleging a toxic workplace, harassment, and bullying.

The Employer opposed production, arguing the document was not arguably relevant and its disclosure could be detrimental to workplace culture.

The Arbitrator found the document arguably relevant as it flowed from and addressed the issues raised in the grievances.

To mitigate potential harm to the workplace and preserve settlement opportunities, the Arbitrator ordered the document produced only to Union counsel and the assigned Grievance Officer, subject to the implied undertaking rule.

The Union filed multiple grievances alleging that the Employer failed to manage a difficult employee in the Bailiff Department.

The Union argued that the Employer should not have reinstated the employee to the department and that it failed to adequately address his harassing and discriminatory conduct, thereby creating a poisoned work environment.

The Arbitrator dismissed the grievances, finding that the Employer's decision to return the employee to his home position was a reasonable exercise of management rights and did not violate health and safety obligations.

The Arbitrator also concluded that the Employer acted reasonably in responding to complaints about the employee's conduct and complied with its duty to provide a workplace free from harassment and discrimination.

The Union filed a grievance alleging the Employer breached the collective agreement by denying the grievor Short Term Sickness Plan (STSP) benefits while she was on an accommodated work schedule.

The Employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the grievance as untimely, arguing the grievance was filed nine months after the initial denial.

The Arbitrator dismissed the preliminary motion, finding that the ongoing denial of STSP benefits constituted a continuing grievance because the Employer had a recurring duty under the collective agreement to provide such benefits.

The grievance was therefore timely and directed to proceed on its merits.

The union filed a grievance alleging a violation of the management rights clause and seeking an independent evaluation of amalgamated job duties with the expectation of a higher classification.

The employer brought a motion to dismiss the grievance on the basis that it was a classification grievance for which no remedy is permitted under section 51 of the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act.

The arbitrator agreed, finding that the grievance was a classification grievance and that the Board had no jurisdiction to provide a remedy.

The employer's motion was granted and the grievance was dismissed.

The Union sought an order for the production of documents from the Employer regarding a grievance.

The Arbitrator ordered the Employer to produce documents relevant to the creation of the Senior Strategic Advisor position, the decision to terminate the complainant, and any other arguably relevant documents by June 26, 2023.