Richard Blair

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.

The union filed a policy grievance claiming essential and emergency workers were entitled to holiday pay for Good Friday and Easter Monday, which fell during a 2002 strike.

The arbitrator clarified an earlier interim award, ruling that emergency workers were covered by the collective agreement only in the interval between being scheduled to work and completing all assigned shifts.

For employees who were covered but worked reduced hours, the arbitrator reviewed arbitral jurisprudence on holiday pay during temporary absences and deferred a final ruling pending further submissions on whether a 'reasonable nexus' existed between the holiday pay claimed and the performance of work.

The union filed a policy grievance claiming call-back pay for essential and emergency employees who worked unscheduled shifts during an eight-week strike.

The employer argued that call-back pay only applied to employees who had already worked a shift and were called in prior to their next scheduled shift.

The Grievance Settlement Board rejected both parties' extreme positions, finding that the purpose of call-back pay is to compensate for the inconvenience of working on short notice.

The Board held that call-back pay is owed for an unscheduled shift if it was worked with notice less than the maximum the employee could have received for a call back before the strike.

The Union filed a grievance alleging the Employer violated the Collective Agreement by using agency staff and consultants to perform bargaining unit work.

The parties agreed on a procedural protocol for litigating the grievance but could not agree on the number of mediation/arbitration dates to schedule each month.

The Vice-Chair ordered that 5 mediation/arbitration dates be scheduled each month commencing in November 2003, balancing the number of work areas involved with the Employer's disclosure obligations and the need to avoid a backlog of other grievances.

The union filed a grievance claiming call-back pay for an essential services worker who was called into work on an unscheduled day during a strike.

The employer had paid the basic hourly rate for the hours worked.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that under the essential services agreement, the collective agreement applied without interruption during the strike.

Therefore, the grievor was entitled to call-back pay at time and a half for a minimum of four hours, as specified in the collective agreement.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued a written order confirming an oral order made at a hearing on April 23, 2003.

The employer was ordered to forthwith pay the individuals entitled to monies pursuant to a March 21, 2003 decision, with payments to be made within three weeks of the employer's receipt of completed information forms.

The union filed a grievance regarding holiday compensation for full-time, classified employees designated to provide essential or emergency services during an OPSEU strike spanning Good Friday and Easter Monday.

The Grievance Settlement Board determined the general rules for applying the collective agreement to these employees.

The Board held that emergency workers were covered by the collective agreement only between being scheduled to work and completing all scheduled work.

Essential workers who performed essential services were covered by the collective agreement for the entire duration of the strike.

The specific application of these rules to holiday compensation was deferred.

In a med/arb proceeding under the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act, the Grievance Settlement Board issued an interim award ordering the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care to post three Business Analyst positions in the Systems Officer series within the Assistive Devices Program.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision granting a certification application by OPSEU for newly hired paramedics.

The applicant argued the paramedics were already bound by its existing collective agreement with the municipality.

The OLRB relied on extrinsic evidence to find the collective agreement's scope clause did not automatically include the paramedics.

The Divisional Court quashed the OLRB's decision, holding that the scope clause was unambiguous and the OLRB's reliance on extrinsic evidence to interpret it was patently unreasonable.