Grievance Settlement Board

The union grieved a one-day suspension imposed on the grievor in 2019 for allegedly making offensive and inappropriate comments about a co-worker.

At the mediation/arbitration hearing, the employer agreed to reimburse the grievor for one day of lost wages, noting that the discipline could no longer be used in subsequent proceedings due to the passage of time.

The arbitrator found that no further remedy was required and dismissed the grievance without determining whether the suspension was reasonable.

The union filed a grievance alleging that the employer violated the collective agreement and related legislation when a manager contacted the grievor at home regarding work-related issues.

The employer responded that employees are only contacted off work for operational issues requiring immediate attention and are not compelled to answer.

Proceeding as a mediation/arbitration, the arbitrator found no evidence of harassment or a violation of the collective agreement or legislation.

The grievance was dismissed.

The union requested an adjournment of a grievance arbitration hearing due to the grievor's family health emergency.

The employer opposed, arguing the union failed to comply with prior case management directions to provide comprehensive particulars, and requested the grievances be dismissed.

The arbitrator granted the adjournment given the advance notice of the emergency, declined to dismiss the grievances, but issued strict new deadlines for the provision of particulars and warned that further non-compliance could result in dismissal.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss two grievances alleging workplace harassment, arguing they were barred by a prior Memorandum of Settlement (MOS) and the principle of the sanctity of grievance settlements.

The arbitrator found that the release clause in the MOS explicitly applied only to circumstances up to the date of signing, and the new grievances concerned a subsequent incident.

The employer's primary motion was denied.

However, the arbitrator upheld the employer's alternate motion, ruling that the union could not lead evidence relating to the prior settled grievances as background or context, as doing so would undermine the sanctity of the settlement.

The Union filed a group grievance alleging the Employer violated the collective agreement by failing to distribute overtime fairly and equitably.

The Employer had limited a second overtime opportunity to 50-60 caseworkers who had already participated in a first overtime opportunity, selecting them randomly.

The Arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that the Employer's operational requirements—specifically the need for trained staff to address a backlog and the capacity limits of the training facility—justified the limitation.

The random selection method used to distribute the overtime among the eligible pool was found to be fair and equitable under Article UN 8.2.1.

The Union brought a grievance regarding a competition for an excluded position.

The Employer indicated it would argue the Board lacks jurisdiction, but would do so during the merits hearing rather than as a preliminary objection.

The Arbitrator directed the Employer to produce all arguably relevant materials to the Union by specified dates and scheduled further hearing dates for the merits of the case.

The grievor failed to attend a scheduled videoconference hearing for a grievance alleging termination without just cause.

The Union requested an adjournment sine die or an opportunity for the grievor to explain her absence, noting potential disability issues, while the Employer sought dismissal.

The Arbitrator declined to adjourn sine die or dismiss immediately, instead ordering the grievor to provide a documented explanation for her absence by a specified date, failing which the grievance would be dismissed.

The union grieved a seven-day suspension imposed on the grievor for smoking while in the company of an inmate on a temporary absence pass.

The matter proceeded through the 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 grievor failed to attend the scheduled grievance arbitration hearing, and the union was unable to provide an explanation for the absence.

The arbitrator ordered that the grievance be dismissed effective 30 days from the date of the award, unless the union provides sufficient reasons for the grievor's failure to attend in the interim.

The union grieved that the employer violated the collective agreement by scheduling investigation or grievance meetings on the grievor's scheduled day off.

The employer argued that the relevant provisions only ensure employees do not lose money if required to attend meetings, and that the grievor had not lost pay or time.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that the collective agreement does not prohibit the employer from scheduling a meeting on a specific union representative's regular day off.

The grievor, a Union representative, alleged that the Employer violated the collective agreement by scheduling disciplinary meetings for four employees on short notice and refusing to provide their contact information.

The Employer maintained that it respected the right to Union representation, notified the Union of all meetings, and that the collective agreement did not guarantee a specific notice period or the attendance of a specific representative.

The Arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding no violation of the collective agreement and concluding that the Employer's conduct did not amount to harassment or discrimination.

The grievor filed a grievance challenging the discipline imposed on another employee.

The matter proceeded as a mediation/arbitration.

The arbitrator found that the grievor was not directly affected by the discipline and had no standing to pursue the grievance.

The affected employee had filed their own grievance, and any policy concerns were for the union to pursue.

The grievance was dismissed.

The grievor, acting as a Union Representative, alleged that the Employer violated the collective agreement by scheduling multiple investigation meetings on the same day with inadequate notice, making it impossible for him to attend all of them.

The Employer argued that the collective agreement does not guarantee a specific amount of notice or which specific Union Representative will attend, and noted that no individual employee was prejudiced.

The Arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding no violation of the collective agreement.

The union grieved a one-day suspension imposed on the grievor for entering a Deputy Superintendent's office without authorization to remove a chair.

The matter proceeded via Expedited Mediation-Arbitration.

The arbitrator found that while discipline was justified for the unauthorized entry, the penalty of a one-day suspension was excessive given the lack of ill intent.

The grievance was allowed in part, and the penalty was reduced to a written reprimand.

The union filed a grievance alleging the employer violated the collective agreement regarding a job competition.

At the commencement of the hearing, the parties disagreed on the extent of disclosure.

The arbitrator ordered the employer to produce redacted copies of applications, interview records, and appraisals of interviewed applicants, with unique identifiers.

The information is restricted to this proceeding and must be destroyed at its conclusion.

The union filed grievances on behalf of three employees challenging the calculation of their Continuous Service Dates (CSD).

The grievors sought to have their CSDs recalculated retroactively to include all weeks where they worked less than 40 hours.

The arbitrator found that the grievors had rolled over from fixed-term to permanent full-time positions prior to 2016, and that the 2016 and 2018 collective agreement changes to the CSD calculation formula for fixed-term staff were not retroactive.

The grievances were dismissed.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of a fixed-term Correctional Officer who claimed he should have been rolled over to regular classified status earlier than the employer determined, seeking damages.

Following a review of the grievor's straight-time hours, the parties agreed that he qualified for roll-over on April 15, 2024, and that no damages were owed.

The parties further agreed to adjust the grievor's Continuous Service Date to November 18, 2018.

The arbitrator issued a decision reflecting this agreement.

The Union filed grievances alleging that the Employer violated the collective agreement, community escort agreements, and the Provincial Overtime Protocol by assigning 'secure-to-secure' inmate transfer work to correctional officers from institutions other than the one where the inmate was originally housed.

The Arbitrator dismissed the grievances, finding that an inmate being transferred is not in the custody of either the sending or receiving institution, but rather in the custody of the transferring officers.

The Arbitrator concluded that the Employer's management right to assign transfer work to any correctional institution is unfettered by the escort agreements, the overtime protocol, or the correctional officer job description.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of a cook who worked 22 two-hour after-hours assignments to provide meals for an inmate observing Ramadan.

The employer paid four hours of call back pay for the first assignment and two hours of regular overtime for the remaining 21.

The union argued all 22 assignments should be compensated as call backs under the collective agreement.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that the 21 assignments were pre-arranged overtime, not call backs, because the grievor was not called back to work after leaving the workplace.

The Union filed a grievance alleging the Employer violated the collective agreement and the Ontario Human Rights Code by failing to offer off-season work to a seasonal Sawmill Interpreter.

The Employer raised a preliminary objection, arguing the grievance failed to disclose a prima facie case.

The Arbitrator dismissed the preliminary objection in part, finding the particulars supported an arguable claim of a collective agreement breach and discrimination based on perceived disability, but dismissed the claim of age discrimination.