Grievance Settlement Board

The grievance was dismissed after the representative of the group, Kevin Douglas, failed to provide an explanation for his non-attendance at the scheduled hearing, as ordered in a previous decision.

The Union requested an order permitting service of a summons by email on a witness after attempts at personal service failed.

The Employer did not object to the request.

The Arbitrator granted the order, directing that the summons served by email would have the same legal effect as one served personally.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of a correctional officer disputing the employer's calculation of his Continuous Service Date (CSD) upon his rollover from fixed-term to regular status.

Following a review of the records, it became apparent that the employer had incorrectly calculated the grievor's work weeks in 2018 and 2019 based on an old collective agreement formula.

The arbitrator directed the employer to adjust the grievor's CSD to reflect the correct calculation of his work weeks.

The grievor, a Fixed Term Correctional Officer, took an approved unpaid leave of absence due to a lack of childcare during the COVID-19 pandemic.

She filed a grievance claiming she should be credited with hours for the duration of her unpaid leave for the purposes of seniority and merit increases.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, applying a previous Board decision which established that unclassified employees do not receive credit for hours during an approved leave of absence without pay.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of a fixed-term correctional officer who sought to have his prior service at another institution counted towards his total hours worked.

The grievor had previously resigned from his position before being rehired.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that under the collective agreement, a resignation constitutes a break in service and terminates continuous service up to that point.

The union filed a group grievance alleging the employer made errors in calculating the continuous service dates (CSD) for several employees when they were rolled over into classified status at the Toronto South Detention Centre.

The parties reviewed the records and agreed on recalculated dates.

The arbitrator directed the employer to amend the CSDs for the affected individuals as agreed, noting that while some dates moved earlier and some later, no further grievances could be filed regarding the impact of these specific changes.

The grievor, a Correctional Officer, filed a grievance in 2019 disputing the calculation of her Continuous Service Date (CSD), which the employer had corrected in 2003.

The employer raised a timeliness objection.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, noting the significant delay in filing and the grievor's failure to provide documentation supporting her claim that hours were missing from the employer's recalculation.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of a fixed-term correctional officer, alleging the employer improperly calculated her seniority under Appendix COR24 of the collective agreement.

The grievor sought credit for time previously worked at a youth centre and a municipality.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that neither previous employer was part of the Ontario Public Service, and therefore the time worked could not be included in her hours of service for seniority purposes.

The grievor, a Probation and Parole Officer, filed a grievance alleging the employer violated the collective agreement by denying his Transition Exit Initiative (TEI) request while approving a less senior employee's request.

Following the filing of the grievance, the grievor's TEI request was granted during a modernization process.

The union subsequently advised the employer that the grievor agreed to withdraw the grievance.

Although the grievor later claimed he did not want to withdraw it, the arbitrator found that the grievance was moot because the grievor had already received the exact remedy sought.

The grievance was dismissed.

In a grievance arbitration scheduled for hearing, the Employer requested particulars from the Union to prepare for the hearing.

The Union did not oppose the request but failed to provide the particulars.

The Arbitrator issued an interim decision directing the Union to provide full particulars to the Employer by a specified date.

The parties participated in a Med/Arb process to resolve outstanding overtime grievances at various institutions, pursuant to a 2011 Memorandum of Agreement.

The arbitrator reviewed the facts, supporting documents, and submissions for multiple grievances.

A schedule of outcomes was issued, with some grievances upheld for straight time or overtime pay, and others dismissed.

The grievor, a correctional officer, was assaulted by an inmate and suffered serious injuries.

The union filed a grievance alleging the employer failed to provide a safe workplace, breaching the collective agreement and the Occupational Health and Safety Act, and sought declarations and $20,000 in damages.

The employer acknowledged its failure to provide a safe workplace but argued the Board lacked jurisdiction to order damages.

The arbitrator granted the grievance in part, issuing declarations that the employer breached its legal obligations under the collective agreement and the Act, but declined to order damages.

The union grieved on behalf of a correctional officer that the employer breached the collective agreement by denying her application for a temporary assignment to a pilot project.

The parties referred the grievance to mediation/arbitration and requested a decision without precedential value and without written reasons.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance.

The Union filed a policy grievance claiming that its bargaining rights extended to the PRESTO division of Metrolinx, arguing that PRESTO was functionally integrated into Metrolinx and that certain positions within PRESTO performed bargaining unit work.

The Employer maintained that the Union's bargaining rights were restricted to the GO Transit division, as explicitly stated in the collective agreement.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the collective agreement clearly restricted bargaining rights to GO Transit and that PRESTO existed as a legitimate, identifiable division without sufficient functional integration to extend the bargaining unit.

The Association grieved the Employer's decision to declare a long-service employee to have abandoned her position after she failed to provide updated medical information to substantiate her ongoing absence.

The arbitrator found that, given the unique facts including the nature of the disability and the medical information already provided, the Employer should have placed the employee on an approved unpaid leave of absence rather than declaring job abandonment.

The grievance was allowed, and the employee was reinstated to an unpaid leave of absence until her intended retirement date.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued case management directions regarding 34 grievances filed by employees at the Ministry's Windsor office.

The Union was directed to file particulars and detail its disclosure request by December 1, 2021.

The Employer was directed to respond to the disclosure request and indicate any preliminary issues by January 17, 2022, ahead of the next hearing date.

The Union filed a grievance challenging the Employer's use of surveillance cameras to monitor the performance of correctional officers, alleging it breached Appendix COR10 of the collective agreement.

The Arbitrator found that the Employer's use of surveillance video to investigate serious incidents and incidentally discovering unrelated misconduct did not violate the agreement.

However, the Arbitrator ruled that live monitoring of an officer during a Code Blue and conducting spot checks of surveillance video to ensure compliance with shift changeover procedures breached the collective agreement, as the Employer failed to establish the reasonable necessity of these privacy intrusions.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss four grievances regarding overtime assignments because the union failed to provide requested particulars and documents.

Despite multiple requests from the employer and warnings that the hearing could not proceed, the union did not provide the particulars or offer any explanation for the delay.

The arbitrator granted the employer's motion and dismissed the grievances, noting that the union's failure compromised the ability to proceed and undermined the efficiency of the grievance arbitration system.

During a mediation, a production issue arose regarding a Workplace Discrimination and Harassment Prevention (WDHP) report involving the grievor.

The Arbitrator directed the Employer to produce the relevant WDHP report to the Union.

The employer brought a motion to dismiss two grievances alleging workplace harassment and bullying by a manager, arguing the union's particulars failed to disclose a prima facie case.

The union alleged the manager yelled at an employee for sitting at the wrong desk, mocked two employees for standing close together, and aggressively reprimanded an employee regarding mask-wearing.

The arbitrator accepted the allegations as true for the purpose of the motion and noted the manager's conduct was inappropriate and disrespectful.

However, the arbitrator concluded the conduct fell short of the definition of harassment under the collective agreement and the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The motion was granted and the grievances were dismissed.