Grievance Settlement Board

The Union filed a policy grievance alleging the Employer breached its health and safety obligations by failing to remove a roadside memorial erected outside the Elgin Middlesex Detention Centre.

The memorial, dedicated to inmates who died in custody, caused psychological harm and triggered post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms in correctional officers who were first responders to the deaths.

The Arbitrator found that the Employer failed to take every precaution reasonably necessary to protect the health and safety of the employees.

The grievance was allowed, and the Employer was ordered to remove the memorial and retain its contents for 30 days to allow families to collect their property.

Following a prior decision determining that Article 7.3 of the Collective Agreement applied to the remedy, the parties were unable to agree on the remedy's implementation.

The Arbitrator ordered the Employer to fix the grievors' wages at the FSA1 rate as of May 3, 2021, and set a timeline for the Employer to calculate retroactive payments starting from June 4, 2018, share the calculations with the Union, and finalize the amounts.

The union filed a grievance claiming call-back pay for an employee who received and reviewed work-related emails and texts outside of her regular working hours.

The employer argued that the communications merely informed the employee of a meeting and did not require work to be performed.

The arbitrator found that the nature and timing of the communications, including texts to the employee's personal phone, created a reasonable expectation that she review them prior to her next shift.

The grievance was allowed in part, and the employee was awarded four hours of call-back pay at time and one-half.

The employer brought a motion to dismiss the union's claim that it acted in bad faith in meeting its obligations under Minutes of Settlement regarding the grievor's return to work and placement in a case worker position.

The union alleged the employer failed to properly integrate the grievor and set him up for failure.

The arbitrator found that the union's particulars, even if accepted as true, did not support a prima facie case of bad faith, as they did not show deliberate actions designed to undermine the grievor's success.

The employer's motion to dismiss the bad faith claim was granted.

The Employer brought a motion to strike numerous elements of the Union's Statement of Particulars regarding grievances alleging discrimination, harassment, and unjust discipline of a Youth Services Officer.

The Employer argued the particulars were insufficient, irrelevant, or failed to disclose a prima facie breach of the Collective Agreement.

The Arbitrator struck two paragraphs for irrelevance and found several others insufficiently particularized, but declined to strike them entirely, instead ordering the Union to provide further and better particulars to enable the Employer to know the case it has to meet.

The union filed grievances alleging the employer failed to prevent a poisoned work environment by not addressing harassing and bullying conduct and by reinstating the alleged harasser.

At the close of the union's case, the employer brought a non-suit motion seeking to dismiss the grievances.

The arbitrator applied the standard of a prima facie case and found that there was some evidence to support the claim.

The employer's non-suit motion was dismissed.

The union grieved a five-day suspension imposed on a Correctional Officer, alleging a breach of the collective agreement.

The employer maintained there was no breach but acknowledged a Minutes of Settlement between the Ministry and the union that provided for a reduction of five-day suspensions to four days with reimbursement for lost wages.

The arbitrator ordered the employer to reduce the discipline to four days and compensate the grievor accordingly.

The grievor, a correctional officer, grieved a fifteen-day suspension, alleging breaches of the collective agreement and the Human Rights Code.

The parties had previously entered into Minutes of Settlement agreeing to reduce fifteen-day suspensions to thirteen days.

The arbitrator ordered the employer to reduce the discipline to thirteen days and compensate the grievor for two days of lost wages, noting no evidence was submitted to support a breach of the Code.

The grievor, a Correctional Officer, grieved a 15-day suspension alleging a breach of the collective agreement.

The parties had previously entered into Minutes of Settlement agreeing to a schedule for reducing discipline, which entitled the grievor to a reduction to a 13-day suspension.

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

The arbitrator ordered the employer to reduce the discipline to 13 days and compensate the grievor for two days of lost wages.

The grievor, a Correctional Officer, grieved a three-day suspension.

The parties entered into Minutes of Settlement agreeing to reduce three-day suspensions to two days with reimbursement for lost wages.

The arbitrator ordered the employer to reduce the discipline to two days and compensate the grievor accordingly.

The union filed a complaint alleging that the employer failed to comply with a memorandum of settlement by not providing the grievor with agreed-upon training courses and meaningful job shadowing opportunities.

The arbitrator found that the employer did not prevent the grievor from taking the courses and that the job shadowing provided met the obligations under the settlement.

The complaint was dismissed.

The parties reached an agreement regarding the disclosure and production of documents in relation to eight grievances.

The Arbitrator issued a consent order setting out timelines for the union to provide particulars and for both parties to produce arguably relevant documents.

The order included specific conditions for the disclosure, handling, and eventual destruction of the grievor's medical records to maintain confidentiality.

In a grievance arbitration, the employer requested production of the complainant's medical documentation.

The arbitrator ordered the union to produce the relevant medical records from the complainant's treating physician for a specified period.

The order included strict protocols for redaction of irrelevant information, secure electronic transmission, limited disclosure to specific employer representatives for instruction purposes only, and restrictions on the use and retention of the records during and after the proceedings.

The grievor, a correctional officer, filed a grievance alleging the employer breached the collective agreement by denying his claim for the cost of altering his uniform shirts.

The employer maintained that shirt alterations were not covered by the applicable policy.

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

The arbitrator denied the grievance.

The Union brought a preliminary motion to adjourn the grievance arbitration hearing to permit the Grievor to obtain an independent medical examination (IME) report from a psychiatrist or psychologist.

The Employer sought production of documents from the Crown and Police relating to the Grievor's alleged harassment of certain individuals.

The Arbitrator granted the adjournment, set a timeline for the IME report and related medical records, and directed the Union and Grievor to take reasonable steps to facilitate the production of the requested Crown and Police materials.

The Union waived its right to seek back wages for the period of the adjournment.

Nineteen grievors employed by the Ministry of the Attorney General filed grievances alleging that the Employer improperly denied their applications for the Transition Exit Initiative (TEI) under Appendix 46 of the Collective Agreement.

The Employer maintained that the grievors' positions continued to be required and their exits would not support the transformation of the Ontario Public Service.

Applying principles established in prior awards, the Arbitrator found that the Employer retained broad discretion to approve or deny TEI requests and had properly exercised its discretion based on relevant considerations.

The grievances were dismissed.

Eight grievors in various positions in the Ministry of the Attorney General filed grievances after their applications for the Transition Exit Initiative (TEI) were denied prior to their retirement.

The parties submitted an Agreed Statement of Facts.

The arbitrator applied principles established in earlier cases, confirming the Employer has broad discretion under Appendix 46 of the Collective Agreement to determine whether granting a TEI request supports the transformation of the Ontario Public Service.

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

Five Youth Services Officers grieved the timing of their approved Transition Exit Initiative (TEI) applications, alleging they delayed applying due to misinformation or lack of clarity from the Employer regarding exit dates and bridging to unreduced pensions.

The Union argued this constituted arbitrary, bad faith, and discriminatory decision-making.

The Arbitrator dismissed the grievances, finding no deliberate attempt to mislead the grievors and noting that the inherent uncertainty of the TEI program's exit date negotiation meant the grievors' decisions to delay applying until they were eligible for full pensions would likely have remained the same even with better information.

Following a finding that the Employer violated the collective agreement by failing to post and fill vacancies, the parties sought direction on the appropriate remedial framework.

The Union argued that the transfer of the grievors' duties to a lower classification constituted a layoff under Article 20.

The Employer argued that the pay administration provisions of Article 7.3 applied.

The Arbitrator held that Article 7.3 applied, as the work was not eliminated but rather reassessed and reclassified, and directed the parties to negotiate a remedy on that basis.

The union filed a grievance alleging the grievor experienced discrimination on the basis of union activity after obtaining a developmental opportunity through a prior grievance settlement.

The union argued the grievor was treated differently regarding seating arrangements, denial of a compressed work week during training, access to protected time, and being required to report to a manager against whom she had filed a harassment complaint.

The arbitrator found the employer provided rational business explanations for the treatment and preferred the evidence of the employer's witnesses over the grievor's on disputed facts.

The grievance was dismissed.