Grievance Settlement Board

The grievor, a Correctional Officer with 29 years of unblemished service, was given a two-day suspension for using profane and derogatory language towards a Deputy Superintendent during a dispute over staffing and safety in the Psychiatric Unit.

The arbitrator found that while the grievor's conduct breached the Employer's Code of Conduct and Professionalism Policy, the grievor's long service, clean disciplinary record, and forthright admission of the misconduct served as significant mitigating factors.

The grievance was allowed in part, and the two-day suspension was reduced to a one-day suspension with compensation for lost wages and benefits.

The Grievor, a Correctional Officer, was discharged after failing to scan a dayroom and inspect a shower stall, resulting in his failure to observe an ongoing inmate fight and an injured inmate.

The Union grieved the discharge, arguing it was excessive and amounted to differential treatment compared to other officers who missed similar incidents.

The Arbitrator found the Grievor's misconduct was serious, as he neglected his core duties, and that his previous disciplinary record for similar conduct undermined his rehabilitative potential.

The Arbitrator also rejected the differential treatment argument, finding the comparator incidents were not substantially similar.

The grievance was dismissed and the discharge upheld.

The grievor failed to attend the scheduled arbitration hearing and was found to be at work instead.

The arbitrator adjourned the hearing, ordering the grievor to provide a written explanation and supporting medical documentation, if applicable, for his absence.

The employer retained the right to bring a motion to dismiss based on the failure to attend.

The union filed grievances on behalf of several correctional officers whose applications for the Transition Exit Initiative (TEI) were denied by the employer.

The union argued that the employer's exclusive focus on staffing shortages and the lack of intention to reduce correctional officer positions amounted to a blanket rule, thereby fettering its discretion.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievances, finding that the employer properly exercised its broad discretion under the collective agreement.

The consistent denial of TEI requests from correctional officers was not due to an improper blanket rule, but rather reflected the shared operational and fiscal realities of their chronically understaffed positions, which meant their exit would not support the employer's vision of transformation.

Following a prior arbitration award ordering the employer to pay damages to eligible grievors, the parties disputed which individuals met the conditions for eligibility.

The arbitrator issued an oral ruling determining eligibility for all disputed individuals, preserving their confidentiality by not naming them in a written decision.

The parties previously resolved a grievance through Minutes of Settlement that included confidentiality and no admission of liability clauses.

The Union conceded that it breached these terms by publishing in its 2018 Convention Update that the grievor 'won' his complaint.

The Union acknowledged the importance of settlement obligations and committed to upholding them in the future.

The Union brought a motion seeking an order to allow a forensic expert to access the Employer's electronically stored information (ESI).

The Union sought to forensically examine 65 documents and investigate the wiping of data from three computers during a scheduled refresh.

The Employer opposed the motion, arguing the Grievance Settlement Board lacked jurisdiction to grant such an order and that the request was a fishing expedition.

The Arbitrator dismissed the motion, applying the principle of proportionality.

The Arbitrator found that the Union's request was based on speculation and that the significant cost and delay of a forensic study outweighed any likely probative value.

The grievor, a Correctional Officer, grieved a Letter of Reprimand issued for failing to complete an accurate and fulsome Use of Force Incident Report and failing to maintain proper key control during an incident involving an inmate and a co-worker.

The arbitrator found that the grievor neglected to capture key details of the incident in her report and failed to maintain control over her keys as required by policy.

The grievance was dismissed, and the Letter of Reprimand was upheld as a reasonable disciplinary response.

In a dispute over a job competition for a Trial Coordinator position, the Grievance Settlement Board issued procedural directions following an unsuccessful mediation.

The Board joined the successful incumbent as an interested third party and ordered the Employer to produce the redacted applications and resumes of the screened-in candidates and the grievors.

The Board also set parameters for the upcoming expedited hearing, including a schedule for raising preliminary motions and evidentiary issues.

The union requested an adjournment of a scheduled hearing date due to the grievor's 'family emergency', following a previous adjournment for a medical appointment.

The employer opposed the adjournment and sought dismissal of the grievances, arguing the grievor failed to provide adequate documentation for his absences as ordered by the Board.

The Arbitrator found the grievor demonstrated a lack of interest in advancing his grievances by failing to provide the required documentation and failing to comply with the Board's order.

The employer's motion was granted and the grievances were dismissed.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of a seasonal employee who was screened out of a competition for a full-time position.

At the scheduled hearing, the grievor failed to appear.

The union representative provided evidence of multiple unsuccessful attempts to contact the grievor to confirm whether he wished to proceed.

The employer moved to dismiss the grievance.

The arbitrator concluded that the grievor had proper notice and had abandoned the grievance in law, and accordingly dismissed the grievance.

The union filed a grievance alleging that the employer failed to distribute overtime fairly and equitably, contrary to the collective agreement, after an employee was authorized to work overtime on three dates.

The employer argued that the overtime was authorized by a good faith scheduling mistake and was not discovered until after it had been worked.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that the term 'assignment' in the collective agreement does not apply to situations where the employer was unaware, due to a good faith error, that it had authorized overtime.

The Union brought a motion to consolidate two sets of grievances: one challenging the employer's installation of hidden video cameras, and another challenging the subsequent paid suspension of the local union president.

The Union argued both sets of grievances were connected by allegations of anti-union animus and arose from the same sequence of events.

The Grievance Settlement Board granted the motion, finding sufficient overlap in the factual circumstances and legal issues to justify consolidation for a more efficient hearing process.

In an interim decision, the Arbitrator made case management directions regarding the production of documents.

The Employer was ordered to produce medical records and other documents relevant to the accommodation of an employee, subject to redactions and a confidentiality order.

The Employer also stipulated to certain facts regarding another employee's accommodation, and the issue of remedy was bifurcated from the merits on the agreement of the parties.

The arbitrator issued a procedural direction requiring the Union and the Employer to prepare and exchange written outlines of their positions on the monetary value of any outstanding remedy, along with their rationale, prior to a scheduled mediation concerning grievances over compressed work agreement scheduling obligations.

In a grievance arbitration, the Employer sought an order requiring the Union to provide full and sufficient particulars.

The Arbitrator granted the request, ordering the Union to provide detailed particulars for all individuals wishing to pursue their grievance by February 29, 2020.

The parties engaged in a med-arb process to resolve outstanding overtime grievances at various institutions within the Ministry of the Solicitor General.

Following hearings over several days, the arbitrator issued a bottom-line award detailing the disposition of numerous individual grievances, with some upheld for specific hours of overtime and others dismissed.

The union grieved the employer's decision to screen out three incumbent employees from an interview for a Trial Coordinator position.

The arbitrator conducted a prima facie review of the screening documentation and scoring.

The arbitrator found that the grievors were improperly excluded from the interview process, as their scores on two criteria should have been higher when compared to the successful candidates.

The arbitrator directed that the interviews should be re-done, subject to further submissions from the parties and the incumbent at the next hearing date.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to strike certain particulars provided by the union in a grievance alleging discrimination.

The original grievance and discussions at the formal resolution stage meeting focused on discrimination based on union activity, denial of compassionate leave, and vacation treatment.

The union later provided particulars adding allegations of discrimination based on religion and ancestry, including incidents from a 2014 party.

The arbitrator held that adding new grounds of discrimination constituted an improper expansion of the grievance, as the grievor had made a deliberate choice to grieve only anti-union discrimination initially.

The allegations regarding the 2014 party were also struck as untimely.

The employer's motion was granted in part, and the union was directed to provide proper dates for remaining allegations.

The grievor, a Correctional Officer, requested time off which was denied.

The grievor subsequently booked off sick for the same days.

The Employer requested a medical note, suspecting sick leave abuse, and the grievor complied.

The grievor sought reimbursement of $40.00 for the cost of the note.

The Arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that under Article 44.10 of the collective agreement, the Employer had a reasonable basis to request the note and was not obligated to cover its cost.