Richard A. Blair

In a bargaining unit integrity grievance, the Union claimed that services provided by Native Inmate Liaison Officers constituted bargaining unit work.

A service provider, White Buffalo Road Healing Lodge Inc., previously denied intervener status, requested the opportunity to make submissions regarding another union's motion for standing and to reconsider its own standing.

The Grievance Settlement Board denied the requests, noting that no one appeared on behalf of White Buffalo at the hearing, it lacked standing as a non-party, and the Board does not have the statutory power to reconsider its decisions.

The Union filed a grievance claiming that the insurer was holding an excessive amount of employee funds in the Guaranteed Unrestricted Deposit Account (GUDA) and sought confirmation of employee ownership of these funds, disclosure of underwriting documents, and a premium holiday.

The Employer raised a preliminary objection that the grievance was not arbitrable because the collective agreement did not explicitly cover the administration of the GUDA or surplus funds.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the Employer's objection, finding that the essential character of the dispute arose implicitly from the collective agreement provisions requiring employees to pay premiums for insured benefits.

The grievance was ruled arbitrable and allowed to proceed to a hearing on the merits.

The union applied to consolidate two new grievances with three existing grievances already before the Board.

The existing grievances related to a letter and training opportunities, while the new grievances alleged a death threat from a supervisor and management's failure to investigate.

The Board found that the new grievances did not share common questions of fact or law with the existing ones, as they involved a discrete episode and different individuals.

The motion to consolidate was dismissed.

In an interim order regarding multiple consolidated grievances, the Grievance Settlement Board noted that eight of eleven grievances were finalized by settlement or withdrawal.

For the remaining three grievances, the Board ordered the union to provide particulars by May 24, 2006.

A request to consolidate two additional grievances was scheduled for a teleconference.

The Union filed a bargaining unit integrity grievance alleging that the Employer violated the collective agreement by using fee-for-service Native Inmate Liaison Officers (NILOs) to perform bargaining unit work.

Several Service Providers who employ the NILOs sought intervener status in the arbitration.

The Grievance Settlement Board denied the request, finding that the Service Providers' interest was merely indirect and contingent on their commercial contracts with the Employer.

Because the core dispute concerned whether the work belonged to the bargaining unit, the Service Providers lacked the direct interest in labour or employment law required to justify third-party standing.

The union filed grievances alleging that the employer contravened the overtime provision of the collective agreement by not including attendance credits in the calculation of overtime for unclassified correctional officers.

The union argued that an employee using an attendance credit for a sick day should be treated as having worked that day for the purpose of reaching the weekly overtime threshold.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievances, finding that the collective agreement required unclassified employees to actually perform work to meet the overtime threshold, and that the use of attendance credits provided income protection only, not deemed hours worked for overtime purposes.

The union filed grievances arguing that an employee who worked reduced hours due to a workplace injury retained full-time status and was entitled to all associated benefits.

In a prior decision, the arbitrator ruled that the employee was entitled to specific benefits listed in the collective agreement, but not to other benefits like pension and vacation.

The union subsequently argued that the prior ruling implicitly recognized the employee's full-time status, thereby entitling her to all benefits.

The arbitrator dismissed this argument, holding that the union was bound by the initial decision and precluded from raising the same argument a second time.

The grievor opted out of a divestment and left the Ontario Public Service, electing to receive severance payments under Appendix 18 of the collective agreement.

He subsequently returned to an unclassified position in the OPS.

The employer withheld a portion of his severance payments pursuant to article 20.2.5, which requires repayment if an employee is re-appointed to a position in the OPS.

The union grieved, arguing that article 20 only applies to classified employees.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, following previous jurisprudence that the phrase 'position in the Ontario Public Service' includes unclassified positions, and therefore the repayment obligation applied.

The Union grieved the Employer's interpretation of a Letter of Understanding regarding classification adjustments and a new pay framework for Employment Standards Auditor 2s.

The dispute centered on whether the employees' 'current salary' for placement on the new salary range should be determined as of December 31, 1998, or June 25, 1999 (which would include a 1% general wage increase).

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the Employer properly compared the employees' salary under the old system to the new salary range before applying the 1% increase, and that the resulting wage compression was anticipated by the agreement.

The applicant sought judicial review of two awards by the Crown Employees Grievance Settlement Board regarding the divestment of young offender facilities.

The Board found the applicant breached the collective agreement by failing to require new operators to recognize employees' seniority, and awarded a blanket monetary remedy to all affected employees based on years of service.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the standard of review was reasonableness and that the Board's collective remedy was appropriate and reasonable in the labour relations context, despite the applicant's argument that individual losses should have been assessed.

The Union alleged that the Employer contravened a Memorandum of Settlement by failing to provide the grievor with a classified meat inspector position closer to his residence.

The grievor had secured a classified position in another region through a competitive process but preferred to work closer to home.

The Employer offered him an unclassified position in his preferred region, which he declined due to concerns about sufficient hours.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the Employer was not obligated to create a classified position in the preferred region and that its decision to use two unclassified positions was based on reasonable operational considerations.

The Board also found no bad faith or misleading conduct by the Employer regarding the potential for additional hours in the unclassified position.

The union filed a policy grievance concerning the interpretation of the collective agreement regarding relocation expenses.

The union argued that employees who relocate their residences due to a change in an operation's headquarters beyond a 40-kilometer radius are entitled to relocation expenses without having to meet the 125-kilometer residential move requirement set out in the employer's Relocation Expenses Directive.

The employer maintained that the directive's 125-kilometer requirement applied.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that the collective agreement clearly incorporated the employer's relocation policy, which included the 125-kilometer distance requirement for reimbursement of residential moving expenses.

During a conference call, the employer requested an adjournment of a scheduled hearing, citing difficulties in receiving the notice of proceeding and the unavailability of their advisor.

The union opposed the request.

The Vice-Chair granted the adjournment and rescheduled the hearing.

The Grievance Settlement Board determined the quantum of damages owed to grievors following a previous finding that the employer breached the collective agreement during a divestment process.

The breach deprived the grievors of the opportunity to choose work with a new employer while retaining seniority protection for lay-off and promotion.

Rejecting the employer's argument for nominal damages, the Board awarded compensatory damages calculated by multiplying two weeks' salary by each grievor's years of service, plus interest.

In a grievance arbitration regarding statutory holiday pay for essential workers during a strike, the union sought interest on the monies owed.

The employer argued the union was estopped from claiming interest because it was only raised on the last day of the hearing.

The arbitrator rejected the estoppel argument, finding no detrimental reliance by the employer.

The employer was directed to pay interest on monies owing under the expired collective agreement and on the retroactive wage increase, with the latter accruing from the date the retroactive payments were reasonably completed.

The Grievance Settlement Board determined the entitlement of correctional workers to holiday pay for Good Friday and Easter Monday during the 2002 strike.

The employer argued that correctional workers on the emergency part of their rotation should be treated as emergency employees, only covered by the collective agreement when called to work.

The union argued they were essential workers covered throughout the strike.

The Vice-Chair ruled that because correctional workers were designated to provide essential services, they were covered by the collective agreement for the entire duration of the work stoppage, provided they performed any work during it, and are therefore entitled to holiday pay.

The Employer brought a motion to dismiss several grievances related to the implementation of a Memorandum of Agreement concerning a new pay framework and the granting of merit increases to certain employees.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievances in part.

The Board found it lacked jurisdiction over general complaints about the pay framework where no dispute existed between the parties, except for specific allegations of non-compliance.

The Board also dismissed grievances alleging that other employees received preferential merit increases, as there was no allegation that the Employer's actions violated the grievors' rights under the collective agreement.

The Union filed a grievance alleging that overcrowding at the Hamilton-Wentworth Detention Centre violated the collective agreement.

At a preliminary hearing, the Union sought production of documents related to the facility's capacity and the Employer's efforts to reduce occupancy.

The Employer argued that the Union must first provide particulars of its allegations before disclosure is required.

The Grievance Settlement Board agreed with the Employer, holding that the Union must provide particulars regarding when, where, and how the alleged overcrowding violated the collective agreement before the Employer is obligated to produce the requested documents.

The union grieved the employer's refusal to pay holiday pay for Good Friday and Easter Monday to essential and emergency workers during a 2002 strike.

In a previous decision, the arbitrator ruled that entitlement depended on whether there was a 'reasonable nexus' between the work performed and the benefit claimed.

After receiving written submissions, the arbitrator concluded that a sufficient nexus existed.

Emergency workers were covered by the collective agreement if the holiday fell between the assignment and completion of work, and essential workers had scheduled hours throughout the strike.

The arbitrator ordered that any employee covered by the collective agreement on the holidays in question is entitled to holiday pay.

During a hearing regarding a bargaining unit integrity grievance, the Union requested production of a contract between the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services and Collective Minds Consulting Incorporated.

The Grievance Settlement Board found the document arguably relevant and directed the Employer to provide a copy to the Union's counsel, with specific references to payment deleted.