Peter Dailleboust

Eleven correctional officers filed grievances alleging the Employer improperly placed them at the first pay level of their classification upon rehire.

The grievors argued that other rehired officers were placed at a higher level on the grid.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the comparator officers had continued to perform correctional duties at a private facility during their separation, whereas the grievors had not.

The Board concluded the Employer properly exercised its discretion in placing the grievors at the entry level and dismissed the grievances.

The complainant failed to attend a scheduled grievance arbitration hearing regarding her ten-day suspension and alleged breach of a settlement agreement.

Despite being directed to attend or provide medical justification for her absence, she did not appear or communicate with her union representative.

The employer requested the complaint be dismissed and withdrew its own allegations.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the dispute due to the complainant's failure to participate.

The Employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss a grievance filed by a Correctional Officer on the basis of res judicata, relying on a prior decision that dismissed an earlier grievance filed by the same grievor.

The earlier grievance concerned the grievor's date of re-hire and the application of the Re-Hire Policy, while the current grievance alleged discriminatory treatment regarding her rate of pay upon re-hire compared to other similarly situated employees.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the Employer's motion, finding that the facts and legal issues in the two grievances were distinct, and therefore the conditions for res judicata were not met.

The union requested an adjournment of a grievance arbitration hearing because the complainant failed to attend, citing a medical leave but providing no medical documentation.

The employer opposed the adjournment, noting a history of delays and the complainant's lack of respect for the process, but agreed in the alternative to a peremptory adjournment.

The Vice-Chair granted the adjournment on a peremptory basis, directing the complainant to attend the next scheduled hearing date or provide sufficient medical justification for her absence.

The Union filed grievances alleging the Employer violated Appendix 32 of the Collective Agreement by failing to post work schedules by Friday noon and by cancelling scheduled shifts for flexible part-time employees.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievances, finding that the agreement only required the Employer to notify employees of their schedule as soon as practicable when Friday posting was not possible.

Furthermore, unlike other provisions in the agreement, Appendix 32 contained no penalty for changing a posted schedule.

The Union filed grievances on behalf of Court Reporters who were assigned Flexible Part Time (FPT) status in 2006, arguing that their vacation and seniority entitlements should be calculated from their date of hire pursuant to a 1994 Memorandum of Agreement.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievances, finding that the 1994 agreement was negotiated long before the FPT category existed and was specific to the integration of individuals affected by a 1990 tribunal decision.

The Board held that the 1994 agreement did not retroactively apply to OPS employees assigned FPT status.

The grievor failed to attend the continuation of his grievance arbitration hearing, having also missed the previously scheduled date.

The union requested an adjournment, citing the grievor's frustration with the process and his demand that all managers and union officials involved be present.

The employer opposed the adjournment and moved to dismiss the grievance.

The Grievance Settlement Board denied the adjournment request, noting the grievor's lack of respect for the process and failure to provide a reasonable justification for his absence.

As the union could not proceed without the grievor's evidence, the grievance was dismissed.

The grievor failed to appear at the scheduled continuation of the hearing.

The union requested an adjournment, which the employer agreed to on the condition that it be peremptory on the grievor's attendance at the next scheduled hearing day.

The Board granted the adjournment, noting that the employer reserved the right to require a reasonable justification for the non-attendance and could move to dismiss the case if the grievor failed to appear again.

The union applied for interim relief during a hearing on the merits of multiple grievances for a Probation and Parole Officer.

The union sought an order placing the grievor in a position meeting her medical restrictions, funding for an extension of a temporary position, or a paid leave of absence.

The employer argued the board lacked jurisdiction to grant substantive interim relief.

The Vice-Chair denied the application for interim relief and deferred providing reasons until the decision on the merits is issued.

The Union filed group grievances alleging that the Employer violated the collective agreement by directing flexible part-time registrars to train and complete the responsibilities of a clerk, effectively failing to properly reclassify the positions.

The Employer objected on the basis of arbitrability.

The Grievance Settlement Board agreed with the Employer, finding that the grievances were classification grievances and therefore beyond the Board's jurisdiction.

The grievances were dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and harassment in employment.

Prior to the application, the applicant's union filed grievances on the same matters, which were subsequently settled with the employer for a substantial financial payment.

Although the applicant did not sign the settlement, he retained the settlement funds, and his duty of fair representation complaint against the union was dismissed by the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The Tribunal dismissed the human rights application as an abuse of process, finding that the matters had been appropriately resolved by the applicant's bargaining agent.

The parties sought a determination on the process for litigating numerous outstanding grievances related to the transition of employees to 'flexible part time' status under Appendix 32 of the collective agreement.

The arbitrator established an expedited process based on written statements of fact and submissions, without viva voce evidence unless necessary.

Additionally, the arbitrator ruled that hours of an unpaid leave of absence are not credited toward the minimum annual hours worked for flexible part time employees, as there was no collective agreement language supporting the inclusion of unpaid hours.

The parties sought a determination on the process for litigating numerous outstanding grievances related to the transition of employees to 'flexible part time' status under Appendix 32 of the collective agreement.

The arbitrator established a streamlined process for the remaining grievances, relying on written statements and submissions rather than viva voce evidence.

Additionally, the union asked whether the employer had an obligation to convert fixed term employees to flexible part time status.

The arbitrator agreed with the employer that there is no such obligation, as Appendix 32 does not contain conversion provisions similar to those found elsewhere in the collective agreement.

The parties engaged in a process to resolve numerous outstanding grievances related to the interpretation of Appendix 32 of their collective agreement, which introduced a 'flexible part time' employee category.

The arbitrator established a streamlined litigation process for the remaining grievances.

On the substantive issue of whether the employer had an ongoing obligation to annually review the placement of flexible part-time employees into minimum annual hour categories, the arbitrator found that the obligation ceased following a September 2007 Memorandum of Agreement that reduced the categories and removed the review process.

The union filed a grievance alleging the employer violated the collective agreement by deducting a day from the grievor's vacation bank after she called in sick.

The employer provided documentation proving the grievor attended work and was paid for work performed on the day in question.

The arbitrator accepted the employer's evidence and dismissed the grievance.

The grievor, returning to work after a disability leave, was placed on a three-month temporary assignment as an Electronic Supervision Resource Officer (ESRO).

During this period, he was job shadowing and was not provided with standard ESRO equipment such as a dedicated office, Ministry vehicle, cell phone, pager, building key, or new identification card.

The union grieved, alleging the employer's failure to provide these resources constituted discrimination on the basis of disability contrary to the collective agreement and the Human Rights Code.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that the employer's decisions regarding equipment were based on the grievor's status as a temporary employee engaged in job shadowing, not his disability.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of a flexible part-time court clerk, alleging the employer violated the collective agreement by failing to advise her whether premium pay would be triggered for work performed on July 2, 2007.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that at the time the grievance was filed, there was no provision in the collective agreement regarding alternate days or days designated in lieu of holidays.

Furthermore, as a flexible part-time employee, the grievor did not have the option of refusing a scheduled day of work regardless of its designation.

The Union filed grievances alleging that the Employer violated Appendix 32 of the Collective Agreement by assigning Flexible Part Time (FPT) employees to job shadow classified full-time staff, thereby taking work away from them.

The Employer argued that job shadowing was for learning purposes and did not reduce the number of classified staff.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievances, finding that Appendix 32 does not prohibit job shadowing and that observing another employee does not constitute an assignment of work that adversely impacts full-time regular court office staff.

A group grievance was filed alleging a breach of the collective agreement regarding lunch breaks, as the grievors were told to take an hour while others took 45 minutes.

Upon learning of the issue, the employer paid the grievors for the 15-minute difference from the time they achieved flexible part-time status until the grievance was filed.

The union sought retroactive payment back to each grievor's start date.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that the employer had already provided a remedy beyond the Board's standard practice of ordering redress no further back than 30 days prior to the filing of the grievance.

The union filed a grievance on behalf of the grievor alleging that he should have been converted to full-time status and that the failure to do so was based on gender discrimination.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the grievor had not worked sufficient hours to qualify for conversion under the collective agreement.

Furthermore, no evidence of discrimination was provided.

The grievance was denied.