Grievance Settlement Board

The Union filed grievances on behalf of three fixed-term Operations Officers at the Provincial Emergency Operations Centre, alleging the Employer failed to post and fill permanent vacancies, failed to convert them to regular service, and failed to provide attendance credits.

The Arbitrator found that the Employer violated the collective agreement by failing to post permanent vacancies despite a continuing need for full-time work at the duty desk.

The Arbitrator also found the Employer improperly ceased issuing attendance credits.

However, the conversion grievance was dismissed because the collective agreement required a minimum number of 'straight-time' hours, and the grievors' overtime hours could not be included to meet the threshold.

The Grievance Settlement Board held a Med-Arb session to resolve numerous outstanding overtime grievances between the union and the employer.

Following the presentation of facts and submissions by both parties, the arbitrator issued a bottom-line decision without reasons, as agreed by the parties.

The attached appendix details the disposition of each individual grievance, with some being upheld and others dismissed.

The grievor, a Youth Services Officer, was directed to work overtime but advised she had a medical appointment.

She was relieved from the overtime but directed to provide a medical note confirming the appointment.

The grievor provided a note and filed a grievance seeking $20 for the cost of the note, as well as a declaration of bullying and harassment and $5,000 in general damages.

Proceeding on the basis of representations without reasons, the arbitrator directed the employer to pay the grievor $20 for the medical note and dismissed the grievance in all other respects.

The grievor, a fixed-term Youth Services Officer, was denied unpaid vacation leave in 2019.

The union filed a grievance alleging the denial breached the collective agreement and the Employment Standards Act, 2000.

The arbitrator found that the denial of unpaid vacation leave was indeed a breach and issued a declaration to that effect.

However, because the grievor became a full-time permanent employee in 2020 and was credited with 52 weeks for 2019 for calculating his continuous service date, no damages were awarded.

The Union sought an order for the production of documents relating to complaints, discipline, and investigations concerning a specific employee's conduct and an allegedly poisoned work environment.

The Arbitrator ordered the Employer to produce the requested documents, subject to privilege, and imposed conditions on the Union's counsel regarding the use and destruction of documents containing personal information.

In an interim decision regarding document production, the Union requested unredacted audio tapes of emergency calls and Bell call logs for administrative lines.

The Employer objected, arguing that producing the audio tapes would breach the Personal Health Information Protection Act (PHIPA) and be unduly burdensome, and that producing the call logs would require creating new records that do not currently exist.

The Arbitrator agreed with the Employer, finding that the requested productions would be unduly burdensome and, in the case of the audio tapes, would breach PHIPA.

The Union's requests for production were denied.

The grievor, a correctional officer with over 25 years of service, grieved his termination for allegedly displaying bullying conduct, using excessive force on an inmate, and failing to submit an occurrence report.

The incident involved the grievor confiscating liquid soap from an inmate and following him into a shower stall, where the inmate alleged the grievor physically pinned him and used abusive language.

The arbitrator applied the Faryna v. Chorny test for credibility and preferred the inmate's evidence, noting it was corroborated by a registered nurse and video evidence.

Given the grievor's prior 15-day suspension for similar misconduct and his lack of remorse, the arbitrator found just cause for termination and dismissed the grievance.

The Association of Management, Administrative and Professional Crown Employees of Ontario (AMAPCEO) filed a grievance against the Crown.

The Ontario Public Service Employees Union (OPSEU) sought intervener status.

AMAPCEO argued that the issue of representation had already been decided by the Ontario Labour Relations Board, rendering OPSEU's intervention moot due to res judicata or issue estoppel.

OPSEU did not address this argument in its reply submissions, maintaining it had a right to intervene first.

The arbitrator declined to rule on the intervention without further submissions from OPSEU on the res judicata issue, directing a schedule for further written submissions to avoid adding uncertainty to the long-standing dispute.

The grievor, a correctional officer, filed two grievances alleging the employer breached the collective agreement by denying his requests for special and compassionate leave.

The parties referred the matter to mediation/arbitration and requested a decision without precedent or prejudice, and without written reasons.

The arbitrator granted the first grievance in part and denied the second, directing the employer to pay the grievor for six hours as one half of a discretionary day.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of an employee who was disciplined for an incident that occurred in a courtroom.

The union sought production of the court recording from the date and time of the incident, arguing it was relevant to the dispute over what transpired.

The arbitrator ordered the employer to produce the requested court recording to the union.

The Employer requested that the grievances be dismissed due to the grievor's refusal to participate in the rehearing of her case before the Grievance Settlement Board.

The original arbitrator became unable to continue, necessitating a rehearing.

The grievor failed to respond to scheduling requests and indicated she was pursuing a related application at the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario instead.

The arbitrator found that allowing the matter to continue in the face of the grievor's ongoing refusal to participate would be an abuse of process and dismissed the grievances.

The grievor, a former union president, was denied special and compassionate leave for an absence caused by car difficulties.

The union filed a grievance alleging the denial was improper and sought 12 hours of pay.

The matter proceeded through the Expedited Mediation-Arbitration process.

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

The union filed a grievance seeking the removal of a letter of reprimand dated April 28, 2015, from the grievor's personnel file, arguing that it was over three years old and required removal under the collective agreement.

The arbitrator found no evidence that the letter had not been removed, and the employer confirmed that it had already done so.

Concluding there was no breach of the collective agreement, the arbitrator dismissed the grievance.

The grievor attended a Grievance Settlement Board hearing on his regularly scheduled day off and sought compensation for the loss of the opportunity to work overtime on that day.

The matter proceeded via an expedited mediation-arbitration process.

The arbitrator found no breach of the collective agreement and dismissed the grievance without reasons, in accordance with the negotiated protocol.

The Union filed a policy grievance alleging the Employer violated the collective agreement by assigning 'change-offs' to standby bus drivers at the sixth hour of their shift.

The Union argued that a change-off is a 'task' rather than a 'specific piece of work' and therefore cannot be assigned at the sixth hour.

The Arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that the collective agreement's broad definition of standby work, the historical practice of assigning change-offs to standby drivers, and the purpose of protecting service supported the Employer's right to make such assignments, provided the supervisor reasonably believes the work can be completed within the driver's remaining spread limit.

The grievor, a Correctional Officer, received a one-day suspension for allegedly arriving late to her assigned post and using her cell phone in a secure area without authorization.

The grievor acknowledged the improper cell phone use but disputed the allegation of arriving late.

The arbitrator found that the acknowledged improper cell phone use was a sufficient basis for the one-day suspension, making it unnecessary to address the late arrival allegation.

The grievance was dismissed.

The grievor, a black employee, filed a grievance after a white co-worker used a racial slur during an off-duty social outing.

The employer investigated and concluded the incident was not work-related, issuing only a letter of counsel to the co-worker.

The union argued the employer failed to comply with its obligations under the Human Rights Code to address racial discrimination.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that the off-duty conduct lacked a sufficient nexus to the workplace to constitute discrimination 'with respect to employment' under section 5(1) of the Code.

The union grieved that the grievor's manager engaged in bullying and harassment, creating a poisoned work environment for the grievor who had a health-related workplace accommodation.

During the hearing, the employer brought a non-suit motion, arguing the union failed to establish a prima facie case.

The arbitrator applied the established principles for non-suit motions and considered the grievor's unique accommodated work situation.

Finding that there was some credible evidence to support a prima facie case, the arbitrator dismissed the employer's non-suit motion and directed the hearing to continue.

The grievor, a Correctional Officer, filed a grievance claiming his Continuous Service Date (CSD) was incorrectly calculated because it did not include 13 seasons he worked as a seasonal Forest Fire Fighter for the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that under the collective agreement, fixed-term seniority is calculated back to the first break in employment greater than 13 weeks.

Because the grievor had no break greater than 13 weeks in 2003 before starting as a Correctional Officer, his hours for that year must be counted.

However, previous years could not be counted due to breaks in service greater than 13 weeks.

The grievance was upheld in part.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of a Fixed Term Correctional Officer, claiming the employer violated the collective agreement by not counting his prior hours worked as a seasonal worker at the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry towards his Continuous Service Date.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that the grievor had a break in service of greater than 13 weeks before commencing his position as a Correctional Officer, which under the collective agreement precluded those prior hours from being counted.