Richard Blair

The Union requested an adjournment sine die of a scheduled hearing date because it reasonably believed the grievor, who suffers from PTSD, would behave disruptively, making it impossible to conduct the hearing.

The Employer opposed the adjournment, arguing the proceeding had gone on too long.

The Grievance Settlement Board granted the adjournment, noting the grievor's recent extreme conduct and the likelihood of its repetition.

However, the Board declined to adjourn the matter sine die, instead rescheduling it to a specific date to ensure the proceeding is not left in limbo indefinitely.

During a conference call, the Union requested an adjournment sine die of the upcoming hearing date.

The Employer opposed the request.

The Vice-Chair granted the adjournment but declined to adjourn the matter sine die, instead rescheduling the hearing to a specific date, with reasons to follow.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued an amendment to its January 7, 2009 decision.

The amendment replaces the last sentence of paragraph 16 to clarify that only the Article 42.10 issue raised by the grievor's February 25, 2008 grievance is dismissed, while any remaining issues from that grievance remain outstanding.

The grievor, a Correctional Officer, developed PTSD and was unable to return to his custodial position.

After receiving LTIP benefits, he returned to work on temporary assignments in a different role.

The Union grieved, arguing that under Article 42.10 of the Collective Agreement, the grievor was entitled to the employment stability provisions of Article 20B, as if he had received a surplus notice.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that Article 42.10 is merely a timing provision that delays the application of Article 20B for employees who have received a surplus notice until they are able to return to full-time employment.

It does not grant access to Article 20B benefits to an employee who has not received a surplus notice.

The union filed a grievance asserting that the position of Administrative Coordinator should be included in the bargaining unit.

The employer brought a motion requesting that the Grievance Settlement Board defer the proceedings pending a determination by the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) on whether the person filling the position is an employee under the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act.

The Board found that it had concurrent jurisdiction with the OLRB to determine employee status.

Considering the delay that deferral would cause and the Board's expertise in public sector labour relations, the Board declined to exercise its discretion to defer to the OLRB and dismissed the employer's motion.

The Union filed twenty-three policy grievances under the Bargaining Unit Integrity (BUI) Protocol, each naming an entire Ministry.

The Employer objected, arguing the Protocol did not contemplate grievances framed so broadly, as it would make the required disclosure obligations impossible to meet within the stipulated six-week timeframe.

The Grievance Settlement Board agreed with the Employer, finding that the language of the Protocol, which refers to 'units, branches, departments, or offices', indicates an intention to identify areas smaller than a Ministry to ensure the process can be managed efficiently.

The grievances were dismissed.

The union filed grievances alleging that a letter dismissing a workplace harassment complaint contained defamatory statements about the grievor and was distributed too widely.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the distribution of the letter to relevant management and human resources personnel was reasonable.

The Board held that the communication was protected by qualified privilege, as the author and recipients had a legitimate interest in the matter, and the union failed to establish malice to defeat the privilege.

The grievances were denied.

The Association of Management, Administrative and Professional Crown Employees of Ontario (AMAPCEO) filed a grievance asserting that Operational Manager positions were improperly excluded from its bargaining unit.

OPSEU sought to intervene.

AMAPCEO contested OPSEU's standing and sought production of documents to establish that OPSEU had conceded any claim to the classifications in question.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the Crown to produce specific job descriptions, salary ranges, and personnel file documents relevant to the reclassification of OCR14 positions.

The Board also upheld OPSEU's claim of solicitor-client privilege over two documents.

In a grievance arbitration concerning the exclusion of Operational Manager positions from the bargaining unit, the proposed intervener union sought standing.

The grieving union requested production of documents relating to the proposed intervener's status.

The arbitrator ordered the employer and the proposed intervener to produce documents relating to the settlement of previous grievances and collective bargaining, subject to claims of privilege or relevance.

The employer brought a pre-hearing application to dismiss two grievances filed by the union on behalf of an employee.

The grievances alleged that a manager's letter, which responded to a workplace harassment complaint and detailed past unsustained allegations against the grievor, was defamatory and improperly distributed.

The employer argued the Board lacked jurisdiction over defamation claims and that no prima facie breach of the collective agreement was established.

Applying the Supreme Court's test in Weber, the Vice-Chair found that the essential character of the dispute arose from the collective agreement, as the letter was written by a manager communicating a workplace problem and implicated provisions regarding discipline, discrimination, and health and safety.

The employer's preliminary objection was dismissed.

In a union grievance, the Grievance Settlement Board ordered the Employer to produce particulars of its case to the Union.

The Board also ordered that the Employer lead its evidence first due to its control over the work in dispute, noting this has no impact on the onus.

The union filed grievances alleging that the employer discriminated against employees absent from work due to work-related injuries by not counting their WSIB leave time towards the calculation of continuous service dates, attendance credits, and merit pay.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the failure to include WSIB time for continuous service date purposes discriminated on the basis of disability, as seniority is primarily a participation/access benefit.

However, the Board dismissed the grievances regarding attendance credits and merit pay, concluding that these are compensation benefits tied to work, and the exclusion of WSIB time for these purposes did not constitute discrimination.

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.