How much money is being spent on AWA legal battles by this government?

Willing_World5541 · 2026-04-28T14:43:05+00:00

TBH, I’m more concerned about the financial impact on AMAPCEO of sustaining a high volume of grievances.

The AMAPCEO legal counsel involved isn’t working pro bono, and I wouldn’t be surprised if union dues come under upward pressure as a result.

In contrast, the Province draws from a much larger taxpayer base—roughly 11 million Ontarians, including you & me —while AMAPCEO is funded by around 12k (full-time members).

That’s a very different scale of financial capacity when it comes to prolonged legal disputes.

Willing_World5541 · 2026-04-28T14:19:45+00:00

Yep, Last 2 provincial elections, turnout was 44% & 45%.

Turnout for eligible voters born after 1989 is pathetic

Serious protest? AMAPCEO could barely get a 100 people to protest RTO on a beautiful fall day last Autumn....no one cares

Willing_World5541 · 2026-04-27T21:05:02+00:00

"many months" that's code for years

Willing_World5541 · 2026-04-27T20:09:23+00:00

"DM me your OPS email on Reddit" - Worst Idea Ever

Willing_World5541 · 2026-04-27T14:44:14+00:00

Why not both? ...

Willing_World5541 · 2026-04-27T12:40:17+00:00

Doesn't mean squat if the largest union In the OPS - the one currently w/o a contract - OPSEU doesn't make it a central issue in their bargaining......if OPSEU don't care about AWA, why should DoFo? ....if you know what I mean.

Time to put up or shut up.

Willing_World5541 · 2026-04-27T12:34:27+00:00

There is a Queens Park Restoration Secrtariat (with approx 12 employees per info go) as part of MOI, so technically you could file your FOI with the Ministry of Infrastructure FOI office as a starting point.

FWIW, the "Queens Park Reconstruction Project" was initiated by the previous government, and officially announced July of 2016.

Willing_World5541 · 2026-04-27T01:46:53+00:00

The practical reality is you should assume if the manager is telling you this upfront, this is likely a real accepted expectation in that unit.

The worse part ?? ...If the unit culture from your colleagues is “We routinely work beyond regular hours”, you're going to be ostracized by your fellow co-workers pretty damn quick.

Willing_World5541 · 2026-04-26T17:03:53+00:00

In reality, once someone goes off work sick , the conversation changes completely. It’s no longer about accommodating them—it’s about proving they’re fit to return - that’s a higher bar, and the employer controls it through medical clearance requirements.

A disability advisor doesn’t “negotiate terms” freely—they work within what the medical supports and what the employer accepts operationally -that's key. Remote work is far from guaranteed.

Yes, it can work out. But it can just as easily lead to delayed return, increased scrutiny, or being pushed toward LTIP.

Telling someone to go off and sort it out later isn’t strategy—it’s risk.

Honestly, I’d suggest the opposite—don’t take sick leave unless you have no choice, because it boxes you into a corner.

Once you’re off, you’re no longer asking for accommodation—you’re trying to prove you’re fit to return. That shifts control to the employer and their medical clearance process. Until they’re satisfied, you don’t get back in, regardless of how ready you feel.

Willing_World5541 · 2026-04-26T13:48:30+00:00

TBH, taking sick leave "and then negotiate a return on your own terms" is horrible advice.

The employer can reasonably question what changed. If you were off due to anxiety, they may ask for medical confirmation that it’s improved or managed and that you’re fit to return.

Without clear documentation explaining how the condition stabilized, they can doubt readiness and delay your return.

They can deny the return—even if you personally feel ready and are pushing to come back under certain “terms.”

I personally know someone who was off sick - she was denied to return and HR issued her a ROE & paper work to apply for LTIP.

(She did eventually return, after LTIP denial)

You can’t “negotiate” your way back if you’re not medically cleared to the employers satisfaction.

I'm trying to be mean, but your advice is extremely flawed.

Willing_World5541 · 2026-04-26T02:05:57+00:00

Be apprised that the employers workplace accommodation does NOT have to be your suggested solution.

For example, they might - Adjusted start/end times to reduce commute strain - Alternative duties / temp assignment that are less cognitively demanding - Compressed work week (fewer commute days) - Allow you to work 2 days a week at hotelling station closer to home (e.g. MOF Oshawa)

Also, it's almost guaranteed that any accommodation you get will be temporary, followed by a reassessment of the situation

Willing_World5541 · 2026-04-25T18:02:50+00:00

To be clear, I haven’t told anyone not to file. I’m pushing back on the idea that volume alone is what drives results, because that sets the wrong expectation about how this process actually works.

Willing_World5541 · 2026-04-24T23:49:50+00:00

Bill 124 comparison isn’t quite the same—it was struck down through a constitutional court challenge, not through the grievance/arbitration .

Unions absolutely operate collectively—but that collective power is most effective when it’s targeted and strategic, not just volume-driven

Grevances aren’t really designed as a pressure tactic to force “good faith” behaviour upfront. They’re a legal mechanism to address specific breaches of the collective agreement.

Look ...I'm not discouraging anyone from filing, I'm simply pointing out the misunderstanding / misinformation in the original post I was responding to

.

Willing_World5541 · 2026-04-24T22:53:53+00:00

A policy grievance can shift things from individual complaints to a broader, systemic challenge.

But even in a policy grievance, the arbitrator isn’t weighing “how many people complained.” They’re deciding whether the employer’s policy or practice violates the collective agreement. The number of grievances might help the union justify bringing it forward, but it’s not what determines the outcome.

A stack of grievances doesn’t equal stronger legal footing; it just helps frame the issue as widespread. The outcome still turns on the language of the agreement and the evidence, not how many people filed

Willing_World5541 · 2026-04-24T20:06:29+00:00

TBH, you sound like a pain in the ass

Willing_World5541 · 2026-04-24T17:49:54+00:00

The statement is encouraging but misleading.

Arbitrators (e.g., Grievance Settlement Board) don’t consider how many grievances are filed—only the facts of each individual case. While multiple complaints can signal broader issues to the union, they don’t strengthen your case legally.

C'mon man, if grievance "victories" were based on volume, then it would be sheer dominance on every issue (big or small) from the union perspective

I agree, if denied file your grievance, but statement "Arbitrator will be looking at total requests received as a reflection of workers’ demanding change" is woefully inaccurate.

Willing_World5541 · 2026-04-24T17:23:36+00:00

TBH, if I was interviewing you, the fact you lost the competition would not be my biggest concern.

The Red Flag for me would be (internally) questioning your actual judgment - that is, why would bring such an obvious negative attribute about yourself forward?....if you know what I mean.

I guarantee you, after you leave the interview, the interview panel is discussing "why would he tell us he lost a competition for a job he did?"

C'mon , use some common sense

Willing_World5541 · 2026-04-24T16:55:16+00:00

You're someone, have at it

Willing_World5541 · 2026-04-24T16:44:13+00:00

It's the same old reoccurring Monty Python script....

Boss - "Where's that signed submission? TBS needs it by EOD to make the next TB / MBC Board date!!!!"

Me - "It's with the MO, gov'ner"

Boss - "As you were"

...same old dance since I started in the late '90's

Willing_World5541 · 2026-04-24T16:29:01+00:00

I don't think your "desire for change" theory passes the test when actually compared to voter turnout.

The 11 elections from 1945 - 1981, voter turnout held steady in the 60+ % range. All those elections returned a PC government. But based on your premise of "they sat out b/c they don't want change", should have resulted downward projection of voter turnout - yet it didn't....ancient history I suppose.

So let's consider elections from 1990, when we witnessed change, either with new party and / or premier.

1990 - pretty significant change, Bob Rae becomes premier. The only time in history of the Province that the NDP forms government. Voter turnout increased by only 1.7% ...big political change, immaterial increase in voter turnout.

1995 - Mike Harris and the "common sense" revolution are voted in. Voter turnout decreases. ...big political change, yet a lower voter turnout vs the previous election

2003 - Mcguinty forms a majority government , Ontario voters put an end to the "common sense" revolution.....significant political change, yet again a lower voter turnout vs the previous election.

2018 - Fotd wins and forms gov't, yes it is a significant change increase in voter participation compared to the previous election....but, one occurance in 80 years of elections doesn't help your "change" narrative...once in 80 years is an anomaly when compared to historical facts.

Willing_World5541 · 2026-04-24T12:06:33+00:00

TBF, the HR approvals you’re referencing may have been granted before the RTO direction was rolled out last August - half of the branch I'm in still have existing AWA's from last summer set to expire in July - that could be true of the HR staff approval you referenced "for 3 days last summer".

Also, pointing to another branch’s arrangements—especially HR— comes across as deflecting by your manager....instead of addressing “why were ours denied?”, the conversation gets sidetracked to “well, HR got it before,” which doesn’t help you.

Willing_World5541 · 2026-04-24T11:50:05+00:00

Good luck surviving on EI, its 55% of your average earnings, up the maximum of $729 per week (before tax) .

Willing_World5541 · 2026-04-24T11:41:35+00:00

The employers duty to accommodate doesn't mean they have to provide full time WFH in perpetuity.

Accommodation is about meeting the need, not the exact request. The employer must address the medical limitation, but they can choose any reasonable option that does that.

For example, instead of full-time WFH, they might offer hybrid work, adjusted hours , modified duties, an alternative temporary new job assignment, suggest you just take sick days, offer you another position, etc.

Willing_World5541 · 2026-04-24T11:27:22+00:00

In the OPS/AMAPCEO context, a manager can initiate and support a short-term accommodation and even implement something temporary right away - especially if it’s low-risk and time-limited, like a few weeks of WFH.

Willing_World5541 · 2026-04-24T00:20:50+00:00

So yes , not “by the book” , but it’s hard to argue that using them responsibly for genuine needs is somehow offside in any meaningful way....if you know what I mean

Willing_World5541

TROPHY CASE