Grievance Settlement Board

The grievor filed four grievances relating to missed overtime opportunities for ICIT deployments, denial of Administrative Compensating Leave (ACL) credits, and the early termination of a temporary assignment.

The arbitrator dismissed the ICIT deployment grievances as untimely, declining to exercise discretion under s. 48(16) of the Labour Relations Act to extend the time limits.

The ACL grievance was dismissed because the grievor was on a temporary assignment outside the bargaining unit on the qualifying date.

The temporary assignment grievance was dismissed as the collective agreement did not restrict the Employer's right to terminate the assignment early for operational reasons.

The union filed multiple grievances on behalf of a correctional officer regarding missed overtime opportunities for Institutional Crisis Intervention Team (ICIT) deployments, denial of Administrative Compensating Leave (ACL) credits, and the early termination of a temporary assignment outside the bargaining unit.

The arbitrator dismissed the ICIT deployment grievances as untimely, finding no reasonable explanation for the delay and potential prejudice to the employer.

The ACL grievance was dismissed because the grievor did not meet the eligibility criteria while on temporary assignment.

Finally, the arbitrator found no collective agreement violation in the early termination of the temporary assignment, as the employer had legitimate operational reasons to recall the grievor.

The parties appeared before the Grievance Settlement Board to resolve remaining issues pertaining to Minutes of Settlement regarding vacation credits for seasonal employees.

The Arbitrator, remaining seized of the matter, ordered the Union to provide an exhaustive list of additional bargaining unit employees alleged to be captured by the agreement.

The Employer was ordered to review the list and provide explanations for any denials, with the parties to reconvene to determine any disputed entitlements.

The union filed a grievance claiming 15 minutes of overtime premium pay for a missed lunch break.

The employer had denied the overtime, arguing that the grievor had not worked the threshold 7.25 hours because time spent travelling during regular working hours did not constitute work.

The arbitrator allowed the grievance, finding that authorized travel time during regular working hours is compensable work time, and therefore the grievor had worked in excess of 7.25 hours and was entitled to the overtime premium for the 15 minutes worked during the lunch break.

The union filed a grievance alleging that the employer breached the Overtime Protocol by assigning a discharge assessment for a general population inmate to a social worker instead of offering it as an overtime opportunity to the grievor, a classification officer/discharge.

The union argued that the work exclusively belonged to rehabilitation officers for inmates in the institution for less than 180 days.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that the work in question was not overtime work and therefore the Overtime Protocol was not breached.

The Union filed a policy grievance alleging that the Employer modified the Senior Financial Accountant (SFA) position without notice and that the position should no longer be excluded from the bargaining unit.

The Arbitrator found that the Employer had significantly modified the SFA job content and authority between 1997 and 2014, removing managerial and confidential labour relations duties, and failed to notify the Union as required by the collective agreement.

Finding that the SFA position no longer met the statutory or collective agreement criteria for exclusion, the Arbitrator ordered the Employer to move the position into the bargaining unit and pay union dues retroactive to the adoption of the 2014 job description.

The Union filed grievances alleging the Employer breached the Overtime Protocol by failing to offer the grievor overtime opportunities while she was absent due to illness.

The Arbitrator found that the Employer breached the protocol by not offering a 5-hour overtime opportunity on April 3, and that a subsequent offer on April 4 did not rectify the breach.

The grievance regarding the 5-hour opportunity was upheld and the Employer was ordered to pay 5 hours of overtime.

A second grievance regarding an 8-hour opportunity was dismissed on agreement.

The grievor, a Rehabilitation Officer, returned to work on an accommodation plan involving a work hardening program.

During this program, she was not offered an overtime opportunity that arose on November 26, as her work hardening program was not scheduled to end until November 29.

The union grieved the missed overtime opportunity, arguing she could have completed the work within the required 7-day period.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding the employer's decision not to offer the overtime was reasonable given the limited time the grievor would have had to perform the work while still under the work hardening restrictions.

The union grieved that the employer violated the collective agreement by scheduling seasonal employees for 36.25 hours per week instead of 40 hours.

The union argued that the definition of 'seasonal employee' and the salary schedule entitled them to 40 hours.

The arbitrator found that the collective agreement explicitly excluded seasonal employees from the 40-hour work week provision and that the words 'as applicable' meant the hours depended on individual employment contracts.

The grievance was dismissed.

The Grievance Settlement Board directed the Union to provide particulars of the grievances to the Employer by February 28, 2020.

The union filed grievances on behalf of the grievor claiming compensation for work performed in an acting manager position outside of the bargaining unit.

The parties participated in an expedited mediation-arbitration process.

The arbitrator found no jurisdiction to remedy the grievor's claims and denied the grievances.

The Union requested reconsideration of a 2017 decision that dismissed the grievor's grievance regarding his pension service date on the basis of timeliness.

The Employer argued that the Grievance Settlement Board lacks jurisdiction to reconsider a decision on the merits unless all parties agree or a court directs it, and that the original decision contained no material errors.

The Arbitrator agreed with the Employer, finding no material errors in fact or reasoning in the original decision, and denied the request for reconsideration.

The union grieved the employer's decision to deny the grievor's request for compassionate leave.

The matter proceeded through an expedited mediation-arbitration process.

The arbitrator found that the employer failed to obtain the necessary information to appropriately exercise its discretion.

The grievance was allowed and the matter was remitted to the employer to reconsider the request.

The union sought production of a job application submitted by another employee who had been temporarily appointed to the Dispute Resolution Officer position that the grievor sought to bump into.

The union argued the document was relevant to show the employer acted arbitrarily in finding the grievor unqualified, as it believed the other employee lacked the same qualifications.

The arbitrator denied the request for production, finding that the application alone would not establish the other employee's qualifications without evidence of the entire hiring process.

The arbitrator concluded that ordering production would lead to a collateral inquiry into the other employee's qualifications, which would have minimal probative value for the grievor's case.

The union filed grievances alleging the employer violated the collective agreement when two grievors were not offered Group Leader positions after being interviewed.

Following mediation, the parties executed a Memorandum of Settlement and requested a consent award.

The arbitrator found that the employer's decision to lower the benchmark for the competition was a valid exercise of management rights and not tainted by bad faith.

The grievances were dismissed.

The Union filed grievances on behalf of several employees whose requests for a voluntary exit package under the Transition Exit Initiative (TEI) were denied by the Employer.

The Union argued that the Employer fettered its discretion by only considering whether the positions were still required.

The Arbitrator dismissed the grievances, finding that the Employer properly exercised its broad discretion under the collective agreement to determine that the employees' exits would not support its vision of transformation, consistent with previous decisions on the same issue.

The grievance came before the Arbitrator for mediation but was not settled.

The parties agreed to schedule an additional mediation/arbitration date on the merits for October 1, 2020.

The Arbitrator set deadlines for the Union to provide a summary of particulars and requests for production, and for the Employer to respond.

The Union sought to consolidate a grievance alleging harassment and a poisoned work environment with another grievance regarding compensation for time spent in a police investigation.

The Arbitrator declined to consolidate the matters, finding they involved different facts, locations, and managers.

The Employer objected to the Union's attempt to expand the scope of the grievance to include the grievor's subsequent transfer to another store, which the Union alleged was a reprisal.

The Arbitrator scheduled a preliminary hearing to determine whether the transfer should be included in the scope of the grievance and made orders for production and particulars.

In a grievance alleging failure to accommodate, the employer brought a motion for the production of the clinical notes of the grievor's treating medical professionals.

The union opposed the request, arguing the notes were not relevant and the request was overly broad.

The arbitrator granted the employer's motion, finding that by relying on the medical reports, the union opened the door to the production of the underlying clinical notes.

The arbitrator ordered the production of the relevant clinical notes subject to strict confidentiality conditions.

The Union sought a remedy after the Employer failed to pay a $500 damages award within the 60-day timeframe directed in a previous decision.

The Employer conceded the breach but argued damages were not appropriate.

The Arbitrator found that while the breach was not due to bad faith, the Employer had a history of missing payment deadlines and the grievor suffered frustration and delay.

The Arbitrator declared the Employer breached the direction and ordered the Employer to pay $100 in damages.