Andrew Tremayne

The parties requested a direction incorporating their understanding of the conditions governing document production in the proceedings.

The Public Service Grievance Board issued a confidentiality order directing that all produced documents and recordings be kept confidential, used solely for the proceedings, and returned or destroyed at the conclusion of the matter.

The Complainants, Staff Sergeants at a detention centre, filed complaints alleging they were denied regularly scheduled breaks and rest periods.

The Employer raised a preliminary objection, arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction because the Complainants failed to identify a breached working condition or term of employment, and that the complaints were untimely.

The Public Service Grievance Board upheld the preliminary objection, finding that the Complainants were managerial employees exempt from the Employment Standards Act provisions on eating periods, and had not identified any specific contractual or policy provision entitling them to scheduled breaks.

Furthermore, the Board found the complaints were untimely as the Complainants had been aware of the lack of scheduled breaks for years, well beyond the 14-day time limit under Regulation 378/07.

The complaints were dismissed.

The complainant, a Staff Sergeant and Schedule 5 employee, filed a grievance alleging he was improperly skipped for an overtime shift.

The employer raised a preliminary objection, arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction because the Provincial Overtime Protocol applies only to bargaining-unit employees, not Schedule 5 employees governed by the Management Compensation Directive.

The Board upheld the preliminary objection, finding that the Directive does not prescribe a process for overtime distribution for Schedule 5 employees, and therefore no enforceable working condition or term of employment was breached.

The complaint was dismissed.

The complainant, a Staff Sergeant at a correctional facility, grieved a 7-day disciplinary suspension for arriving late, falsifying timesheets, using the gym during overtime shifts, and sending an inappropriate email to a manager.

The complainant alleged the investigation was racially motivated and that he was unfairly targeted.

The Public Service Grievance Board dismissed the discrimination claim, finding no prima facie case.

However, the Board reduced the suspension from 7 days to 3 days because the employer withdrew one allegation and mistakenly relied on a non-existent prior disciplinary record.

The complainant filed complaints relating to job competitions.

The employer raised preliminary objections.

The Board directed the complainant to provide written responses to the preliminary objections, but the complainant failed to do so.

After a further direction to explain the failure to respond went unanswered, the Board deemed the complaints abandoned and dismissed them.

The complainant filed grievances relating to job competitions.

The employer raised preliminary objections seeking to dismiss the complaints on a prima facie basis.

The Board directed the complainant to file written responses to the objections by a specified date.

The complainant failed to file responses or contact the Board.

The employer requested that the complaints be dismissed as abandoned.

The Board directed the complainant to provide written reasons for his failure to file, warning that the complaints would be dismissed if he failed to respond.

The complainant requested that the Public Service Grievance Board reconsider its decision dismissing his complaint regarding a disciplinary suspension.

The original complaint was dismissed because the complainant failed to file his notice of proposal within the mandatory 14-day time limit under Regulation 378/07 of the Public Service of Ontario Act.

The Board declined to reconsider the decision, finding that the complainant's submissions regarding the merits of the discipline did not address the jurisdictional issue of untimeliness, and the Board lacks discretion to extend the mandatory time limits.

The complainant received a disciplinary suspension and filed a complaint with the Public Service Grievance Board.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the complainant failed to file a notice of proposal with the deputy minister within the mandatory 14-day period under O. Reg. 378/07.

The Board upheld the objection, finding that the 14-day time limit is jurisdictional and the Board has no discretion to extend it.

The complaint was dismissed.

The complainant, a Staff Sergeant, alleged that the Employer unfairly denied him developmental and promotional opportunities for discriminatory reasons, and failed to address workplace bullying and harassment.

The Public Service Grievance Board found that the Employer provided a credible, non-discriminatory explanation for not awarding the complainant a permanent position, as he lacked the required experience.

The Board also found that the Employer took reasonable steps to address workplace friction and that the decision to return the complainant to his home position at the end of a temporary assignment was based on operational needs and the natural conclusion of the assignment.

The complaint was dismissed.

The complainant filed a grievance regarding a disciplinary suspension without pay.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the Board lacked jurisdiction because the complainant failed to give notice of his proposal to file a complaint within the mandatory 14-day period under O. Reg. 378/07.

The complainant argued the delay was due to being self-represented, confusion over a statutory holiday, and fear of reprisal.

The Board upheld the employer's objection, finding that the 14-day time limit is mandatory, goes to jurisdiction, and the Board has no discretion to extend it.

The complaint was dismissed.

The complainant, a correctional sergeant, grieved a 2-day suspension imposed for two separate incidents involving the improper release and admission of inmates.

The discipline was imposed 26 months and 19 months after the respective incidents.

The Public Service Grievance Board found that the employer's delay in investigating and imposing discipline was excessive, unexplained, and highly prejudicial to the complainant.

Consequently, the discipline was declared void and ordered removed from the complainant's file, with full reimbursement for the suspension.

The complainant's request for costs was denied as the employer's conduct was not malicious or in bad faith.

The complainant, a Deputy Superintendent at a correctional facility, grieved a 2-day suspension for insubordination and unauthorized use of a Ministry purchasing card.

The complainant had used his purchasing card to hire a private handwriting expert to investigate a suspected compromised correctional officer, despite being told by regional management that such an expert was unnecessary.

The Public Service Grievance Board found that the complainant knew he required authorization, proceeded without it, and defied clear direction from his superiors.

The Board dismissed the grievance, holding that the 2-day suspension was an appropriate disciplinary response for a senior manager who substituted his own judgment for that of his superiors.

A deputy superintendent challenged his dismissal arising from the preferential treatment of an incarcerated correctional officer and his subsequent statements during the employer's investigation.

The Board found that the complainant, as a senior manager, set the stage for preferential treatment, failed over several days to correct obvious policy breaches, and materially misled investigators by omissions and false statements.

Applying the contextual just-cause approach, the Board held that the misconduct and resulting loss of trust were irreconcilable with continued employment.

Lengthy service and a prior clean record were insufficient mitigating factors.