35 total
Grievance allowed; collective agreement meal reimbursement provisions prevail over employer policy directive.
The union filed a grievance on behalf of an employee regarding the employer's refusal to reimburse meal expenses incurred while travelling for work.
The employer argued that the employee travelled as a regular part of his job and was therefore excluded from reimbursement under its policy directive.
The arbitrator held that the collective agreement prevailed over the employer's policy directive.
Because the employee met the criteria in the collective agreement for meal reimbursement while travelling on government business, and none of the exceptions applied, the grievance was allowed.
Grievor directed to explain failure to appear at hearings before employer's dismissal request considered.
The Union filed a grievance on behalf of an employee whose employment was declared abandoned under section 42 of the Public Service of Ontario Act, 2006.
The grievor failed to appear at videoconference hearings before the Grievance Settlement Board on March 25 and May 7, 2021.
The Employer requested that the grievance be dismissed.
The Arbitrator declined to dismiss the grievance immediately, instead directing the grievor to provide a written explanation for her non-appearance and failure to provide notice.
The Employer reserved the right to bring a motion to dismiss if the explanation was insufficient or not provided.
Grievance regarding performance rating dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, untimeliness, and failure to establish reprisal.
The complainant filed a grievance regarding his 2018-2019 performance rating, alleging it was a reprisal for raising concerns about workplace bullying and harassment.
The employer raised preliminary objections regarding jurisdiction and timeliness.
The Public Service Grievance Board dismissed the complaint without a hearing on the merits.
The Board found that performance evaluations are explicitly excluded from its jurisdiction by regulation.
Furthermore, the complainant failed to meet the mandatory time limits for filing his notice of proposal and his complaint.
Finally, the Board held that the complainant did not make out a prima facie case of reprisal, as his complaints to management did not constitute a disclosure of wrongdoing under Part VI of the Public Service of Ontario Act.
Grievance for long-term disability benefits dismissed as claimant failed to prove total disability from any occupation.
The union appealed the denial of long-term disability benefits to a claimant who suffered from chronic fatigue syndrome and chronic pain.
The insurer had terminated benefits at the change of definition date, determining the claimant was not totally disabled from performing the essential duties of any occupation.
The arbitrator reviewed the medical evidence, including several independent medical examinations, and found insufficient objective evidence of totally disabling cognitive or physical impairments.
The appeal was dismissed as the claimant failed to meet the onus of establishing total disability from any occupation.
Appeal for long-term income protection benefits dismissed as employee could perform accommodated sedentary duties.
The Union appealed the denial of long-term income protection (LTIP) benefits for a Corrections Officer who ceased working following a workplace injury.
The central issue was whether the employee met the definition of total disability during the qualification period.
The arbitrator found that the employee's medical restrictions, primarily related to overhead activities and lifting, did not prevent them from performing the essential duties of their permanently accommodated, largely sedentary position in the Control Room.
The appeal was dismissed.
Grievance dismissed on preliminary motion; pay protection for voluntary demotion inapplicable to unemployed applicant.
The Association filed a grievance alleging the Employer violated the collective agreement when it did not maintain the grievor's previous salary after he won a competition for a lower-paying bargaining unit position following the end of his non-union fixed-term contract.
The Employer brought a motion to dismiss for failing to make out a prima facie case.
The Arbitrator granted the motion, finding that the collective agreement's pay protection for 'voluntary demotion' requires an employee to currently hold a position and voluntarily choose to move to a lower-paying one, which did not apply to the grievor who was not employed when he accepted the new position.
Employer's preliminary objection dismissed; complaint regarding dismissal for cause found to be timely.
The employer raised a preliminary objection to the complainant's complaint regarding her dismissal for cause, arguing it was filed prematurely under Regulation 378/07 of the Public Service of Ontario Act.
The employer contended the 30-day dispute resolution period had not expired when the complaint was filed.
The Board applied the modern principle of statutory interpretation and found that the dispute resolution period ended on the date the complainant reasonably understood based on the employer's communications.
The Board concluded the complaint was filed in a timely manner and dismissed the employer's preliminary objection.
Grievance deemed withdrawn as interim agreement condition of changing reporting relationship was met via reorganization.
The employer brought a motion to enforce an Interim Agreement and dismiss the grievance.
The Interim Agreement provided that if the ultimate outcome was a change in the grievor's reporting relationship such that she no longer reported to a specific manager, the grievance would be withdrawn.
Following a department reorganization, the grievor's reporting relationship was permanently changed.
The union argued the change was due to reorganization rather than accommodation and alleged bad faith.
The arbitrator found that the ultimate outcome required by the Interim Agreement had been met, regardless of the reason for the change, and deemed the grievance withdrawn.
Complaint dismissed for lack of jurisdiction due to failure to comply with mandatory filing timelines.
The complainant filed a complaint alleging workplace bullying, harassment, and failure to accommodate.
The employer raised preliminary objections arguing that the complaint was filed outside the mandatory time limits set out in O. Reg. 378/07 under the Public Service of Ontario Act.
The Board found that the complainant failed to file her notice to the deputy minister within 14 days of becoming aware of the alleged breach, and failed to file her complaint with the Board within 14 days after the expiry of the dispute resolution period.
As the timelines are mandatory and the Board has no jurisdiction to relieve against them, the complaint was dismissed.
Grievances regarding job competition dismissed by consent award; employer's lowering of benchmark was not bad faith.
The union filed grievances alleging the employer violated the collective agreement when two grievors were not offered Group Leader positions after being interviewed.
Following mediation, the parties executed a Memorandum of Settlement and requested a consent award.
The arbitrator found that the employer's decision to lower the benchmark for the competition was a valid exercise of management rights and not tainted by bad faith.
The grievances were dismissed.
Workplace accommodation complaint dismissed for failing to comply with mandatory statutory filing timelines.
The complainant filed a grievance alleging that the employer failed to accommodate her at the workplace following a medical leave of absence due to alleged bullying and harassment.
The employer raised preliminary objections, arguing that the complaint was filed outside the mandatory timelines set out in Regulation 378/07 under the Public Service of Ontario Act.
The Public Service Grievance Board found that the complainant became aware of the alleged violation of a working condition months before filing her notice with the Deputy Minister, and further failed to file her complaint with the Board within 14 days after the expiry of the dispute resolution period.
As the timelines in the Regulation are mandatory, the Board concluded it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the complaint.
Grievance dismissed; discharge upheld for workplace harassment and reckless expiry of inmate non-association alert.
The Complainant, an Operational Manager at a correctional facility, was dismissed for cause following allegations of workplace harassment against a female colleague and the unauthorized expiry of a non-association alert between two high-risk inmates.
The Public Service Grievance Board found that the Complainant engaged in a pattern of harassing conduct that poisoned his colleague's work environment.
Furthermore, the Board concluded that his expiry of the non-association alert was reckless, unauthorized, and placed staff and inmates at risk.
Given the Complainant's lack of remorse and failure to take responsibility, the Board upheld the dismissal and dismissed the grievance.
Arbitrator issues bottom-line decision in favour of the union on red circling and duration issues.
The parties agreed to a bottom-line decision without reasons under Article 22.16 of the collective agreement.
The arbitrator found in favour of the union on both the red circling issue and the collective agreement duration issue.
Employer discriminated by denying religious leave based solely on holy days not appearing on official list.
The grievor, a Ukrainian Christian, requested special leave under the collective agreement to observe two religious holidays.
The Employer denied the request because the holidays were not on the OPS List of Religious Holy Days and the grievor did not provide confirmation from his church regarding his religion.
The arbitrator found that the Employer's reliance on the OPS List and extraneous confirmation requirements, rather than conducting an individualized inquiry into the grievor's sincerely held beliefs, resulted in adverse treatment based on creed.
The grievance was allowed, and the Employer was directed to credit the grievor with two days of vacation leave.
Grievance dismissed as the employee failed to prove the employer withheld documents required for disability benefits.
The complainant, a correctional officer, alleged that the employer prevented her from accessing long-term disability benefits by failing to complete and submit required documents to the insurance carrier.
The Public Service Grievance Board found that the employer had submitted the necessary "Employer's Statement" and that the delay and subsequent closure of the claim were due to the complainant's own failure to submit the required "Employee's Statement".
The complaint was dismissed for lack of evidence supporting the allegations against the employer.
