127 total
Grievor directed to be permanently assigned to Mimico Correctional Centre following reinstatement.
The Grievance Settlement Board previously issued a bottom-line decision substituting the grievor's discharge with a three-month suspension and directing his reinstatement.
The parties entered into an interim return to work agreement but could not agree on the grievor's permanent assignment location.
Following representations from counsel, the Vice-Chair directed the employer to assign the grievor to the Mimico Correctional Centre as a classified Correctional Officer 2 upon completion of his basic training.
Discharge substituted with suspension and one suspension reduced following inmate escape from transport bus.
Three provincial bailiffs grieved their discipline (two 20-day suspensions and one discharge) following an incident where an inmate escaped from their transport bus.
The Union argued the discipline was void due to double jeopardy and delay, but conceded some culpable conduct.
The Grievance Settlement Board issued a 'bottom line' decision, rejecting the double jeopardy and delay arguments.
The Board substituted the discharge with a three-month suspension, reduced one 20-day suspension to 10 days, and upheld the other 20-day suspension.
Employer ordered to disclose letters of counsel issued to other officers in similar incident.
During an arbitration concerning the discipline of three officers following an inmate escape from a transport bus, the Union sought disclosure of letters of counsel issued to three other officers involved in a similar incident.
The Employer opposed the request, offering instead to stipulate the facts of the other incident and raising privacy concerns.
The Grievance Settlement Board ruled that the requested documents were arguably relevant to the Union's claim of discriminatory treatment and that the privacy interests of the other officers did not preclude production.
The Employer was ordered to provide the letters of counsel to the Union.
Adjournment granted despite grievor's repeated failure to attend, but future hearing dates made peremptory.
At the commencement of the scheduled hearing, the union representative requested an adjournment because the grievor failed to attend.
The employer opposed the request, noting this was not the first time the grievor had failed to appear at the last minute.
The Vice-Chair granted the adjournment but ordered that future hearing dates would be peremptory on the grievor, warning that further failures to attend could result in the grievance being dismissed.
Union's motion for non-suit in correctional officer discharge grievance dismissed as employer established prima facie case.
The union brought a motion for non-suit at the conclusion of the employer's case in a discharge grievance involving a correctional officer accused of unjustified and excessive use of force on an inmate.
The union argued the employer failed to call evidence supporting the discharge.
Applying the standard of whether there is some evidence to support the claim, interpreted most favourably to the employer, the arbitrator found the employer had made out a prima facie case.
The motion for non-suit was dismissed without detailed reasons, in accordance with the parties' agreement and board practice.
Grievance alleging failure to accommodate dismissed due to undue delay and intervening voluntary retirement.
The grievor filed a grievance alleging the employer failed to accommodate his disability from January 2002 until his voluntary retirement in June 2003.
The grievance was filed in March 2004, over eight months after his retirement.
The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the grievance due to delay and because the grievor was no longer an employee.
The Public Service Grievance Board allowed the employer's preliminary objection, finding that the delay in grieving was undue and would cause prejudice to the employer, particularly given the intervening voluntary retirement agreement.
The grievance was dismissed.
Union's motion for interim paid leave of absence pending harassment grievances dismissed due to lack of medical evidence.
The Union brought a motion for interim relief, requesting the Board to order the Employer to place the grievor on a paid leave of absence pending the resolution of her grievances alleging harassment and a poisoned work environment.
The grievor had exhausted her short-term sick leave and was on an unpaid leave of absence.
The Board denied the motion, finding that the balance of harm or convenience did not favor the grievor, as there was no medical evidence to support her claim that she was unable to work or that returning to work would cause her medical harm.
The Board also noted that granting the relief would subvert the Employer's accommodation and long-term income protection processes.
Board has jurisdiction to hear interim relief motion but orders Union to provide particulars.
The Union brought a motion for interim relief requesting that the grievor be placed on a paid leave of absence pending the resolution of several grievances.
The Employer objected to the Board's jurisdiction, argued that particulars had not been provided, and objected to the Union relying on the grievor's affidavit without calling her to testify.
The Vice-Chair held that the Board had jurisdiction to hear the motion under section 48(12)(i) of the Labour Relations Act.
However, the Vice-Chair ordered the Union to provide particulars regarding the grievances and the alleged adverse impact.
The Vice-Chair also ruled that the Union could not rely exclusively on the grievor's affidavit without calling her to testify, as the Employer had a right to cross-examination.
Adjournment granted due to employer advisor's summons to attend a criminal proceeding.
The Employer sought an adjournment of a scheduled grievance hearing date because its advisor was summonsed to attend a criminal proceeding on that day.
The Union opposed the adjournment.
Following a conference call, the Grievance Settlement Board granted the Employer's request to adjourn the hearing date and scheduled an additional hearing day.
Employer's motion for additional particulars prior to an interim relief hearing denied.
The Employer brought a motion to compel the Union to provide additional particulars regarding a grievance alleging a failure to accommodate the grievor's disabilities under the Ontario Human Rights Code, prior to a scheduled hearing for interim relief.
The Vice-Chair reviewed the grievance, the Union's letter of particulars, and disclosed documents, concluding that they sufficiently outlined the 'who, what, where, when and how' of the allegations.
The Employer's concerns were deemed to be potential defences rather than a lack of basic particulars.
The motion for additional particulars was denied.
Production of contact information for reference checkers ordered pursuant to subpoena duces tecum.
The union served a subpoena duces tecum on a witness from a third-party service provider, requiring the production of contact information for individuals who checked the grievor's references.
The witness brought the information but requested a written Board order due to privacy concerns and questions of relevance.
The Board ordered the production, noting that the union is entitled to seek clarification of the reference checkers' notes, which were already in evidence.
Production order granted for arguably relevant material in a youth offender's file with name redacted.
In a grievance arbitration concerning the termination of four correctional officers, the union brought a motion for the production of material contained within a youth offender's file relating to a specific incident.
The employer did not dispute that the requested material was arguably relevant.
The Grievance Settlement Board granted the motion and ordered the employer to produce the material, with the youth offender's name redacted.
Grievance dismissed; Board lacks jurisdiction over managerial posting grievance by bargaining unit member.
The grievor, a member of the OPSEU bargaining unit in an acting management position, grieved the denial of a managerial posting.
The employer raised a preliminary objection that the Public Service Grievance Board lacked jurisdiction because the grievor was a bargaining unit member.
The Board upheld the objection, finding that section 31(1) of Regulation 977 to the Public Service Act explicitly excludes persons within a collective bargaining unit from filing a grievance under that Part.
The grievance was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Grievances over job competitions dismissed as out of time; Board declined to extend time limits.
The union filed grievances on behalf of the grievor alleging denial of access to several job competitions.
The employer raised a preliminary objection that the grievances were filed well outside the mandatory 30-day time limit under the collective agreement.
The grievor, a long-time union activist, admitted he knew of the time limits but consciously delayed filing while pursuing other job opportunities.
Applying the Becker Milk test under s. 48(16) of the Labour Relations Act, the Vice-Chair found the grievor was not diligent, the delay of up to 8.5 months was significant, and extending the time limits would prejudice the employer and the successful candidates who had been in the positions for months.
The Board declined to exercise its discretion to extend the time limits and dismissed the grievances regarding the job postings.
Motion to quash subpoena denied; employment references not protected by case-by-case privilege under Wigmore test.
In a grievance alleging discrimination and harassment based on disability and union activity, the union issued a subpoena duces tecum to a third-party employer (Serco) for the production of employment references provided by Ministry supervisors.
Serco and the Ministry objected, claiming the references were protected by case-by-case privilege.
The Grievance Settlement Board applied the Wigmore test and concluded that the fourth condition was not met, as the benefit of correctly disposing of the litigation (which involved public policy rights under the Labour Relations Act and Human Rights Code) outweighed the potential injury to the relationship between Serco and the reference-givers.
The motion to quash the subpoena was denied and production was ordered subject to confidentiality safeguards.
Grievor directed to attend training and commence duties as a Youth Services Officer.
The Grievance Settlement Board issued a direction regarding the placement of the grievor at the Brookside Youth Centre.
The Board directed the grievor to attend MSA training and, upon successful completion, commence duties as a Youth Services Officer starting with two weeks of orientation.
Grievance over missed overtime assignment dismissed as collective agreement did not tie assignment to seniority.
The union grieved the employer's failure to assign out-of-sector work to the grievor, a seasonal fire crew boss, based on his seniority.
The assignment, which would have resulted in overtime pay, was given to a junior employee due to the supervisor relying on an outdated seniority list to meet strict deployment timelines.
The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the collective agreement did not regulate the assignment of the work in question or tie it to seniority.
The supervisor's reliance on limited information to meet operational timelines was not an unreasonable exercise of management rights.
Grievances regarding security of confidential employee information dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
The union filed individual and group grievances alleging the employer failed to ensure the security of documents containing confidential employee information.
The employer raised a preliminary objection that the Grievance Settlement Board lacked jurisdiction to hear the grievances.
The Vice-Chair ruled on a non-precedential basis, without reasons, that the matters did not lie within the board's jurisdiction and dismissed the grievances.
Board affirms jurisdiction to order discipline of managers for sexual harassment but declines termination here.
The union filed grievances alleging sexual harassment by a managerial employee and sought his termination or reassignment.
The parties agreed to a preliminary procedure to determine three issues based on assumed facts.
The Grievance Settlement Board held that the union's pleadings disclosed a prima facie case of sexual harassment.
The Board further affirmed its jurisdiction to direct the employer to discipline or discharge a managerial employee in exceptional cases where absolutely necessary to effect a remedy.
However, the Board concluded that while the primary remedy of termination was not absolutely necessary in this case, the alternative remedies of removing the manager's supervisory powers or reassigning him might be appropriate.
Vice-Chair finalized the list of employees required to repay wages for an unworked shift.
Following a previous decision requiring employees on a 'B' list to repay a portion of their wages for a shift they did not work, the parties were unable to agree on the composition of the list.
The Union argued that no employees should be on the list due to inconsistencies in scheduling documents.
The Vice-Chair rejected this argument and determined which specific employees should be removed from the list, finalizing the 'B' list of employees required to make the repayment.
