Andrew Tremayne

The employer raised a preliminary objection arguing that the complainants' notices of proposal to file a complaint were untimely under Regulation 378/07.

The dispute centered on when the complainants became aware of the working condition giving rise to the complaint regarding the removal of a salary allowance under a new compensation plan.

The Board found that the working condition crystallized gradually and the complainants did not have the complete picture until they saw the changes reflected in their pay stubs.

Therefore, the notices were filed within the 14-day time limit and the preliminary objection was dismissed.

The complainant filed four separate complaints alleging discrimination on the basis of family status, disability, and gender.

The parties agreed that the second, third, and fourth complaints should be consolidated as they share common questions of law and fact and arise from the same series of occurrences.

The parties also agreed that the first complaint should be heard separately as it raises discrete issues and is already scheduled for a hearing.

The Board ordered the consolidation of the three later complaints and directed that the first complaint proceed as scheduled.

The complainant, a Deputy Superintendent of Administration at a correctional facility, filed a grievance challenging the employer's practice of assigning him the duties of an Operational Manager during his on-call rotation.

He argued the assignment was outside his job description and posed health and safety risks due to his lack of specialized training.

The Public Service Grievance Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the assignment fell within the broad scope of his managerial duties and that the employer had legitimate business reasons for the assignments.

The Board also found no violation of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, as the employer took reasonable precautions to protect the complainant.

The complainant alleged that the employer failed to comply with a previous Board decision directing the development of a training plan following his reinstatement.

Subsequently, the complainant's employment was terminated again, and he filed a new complaint alleging unjust dismissal, citing the lack of proper training as a factor.

The Board found that the two complaints shared common questions of fact and that the relief claimed arose from the same series of occurrences.

Consequently, the Board ordered the consolidation of the two files for hearing.

The complainant, a retired Health Care Manager, filed a complaint regarding her entitlement to an enhanced severance payment under the Voluntary Exit Registry.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the complaint was not filed within the mandatory time limits set out in Regulation 378/07.

The Board determined that a February 7, 2018 conference call constituted the dispute resolution meeting under section 9(3) of the regulation, meaning the complaint filed on March 6, 2018 was premature.

The Board further held that the time limits in Regulation 378/07 are substantive, not procedural, and therefore cannot be waived under section 4(1) of the Statutory Powers and Procedures Act.

The complaint was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Following his reinstatement, the complainant argued that his earnings from alternate sources should be applied towards his legal fees rather than deducted from the retroactive compensation owed by the employer.

The employer argued this was a disguised claim for legal costs.

The Public Service Grievance Board dismissed the complainant's request, finding that legal costs and mitigation are separate legal categories.

The Board reaffirmed its practice of declining to award costs except in cases of egregious employer misconduct, which was not present here.

The employer brought a preliminary objection arguing the Public Service Grievance Board lacked jurisdiction to hear the complainant's grievance regarding the assignment of Sergeant COM1 duties during his on-call rotation.

The employer argued the complaint was essentially about job classification, which is excluded from the Board's jurisdiction under Regulation 378/07.

The Board dismissed the objection, finding that a complaint about being assigned work outside one's classification is distinct from a complaint about being assigned to a certain classification.

The Board also rejected the employer's argument that the complainant was improperly expanding the grounds of his complaint to include health and safety concerns, noting these were raised in the initial application.

The complainant, an Operational Manager at a detention centre, was terminated for failing to properly intervene in an inmate-on-inmate assault and for failing to complete compatibility assessments.

The employer argued his lack of action and poor judgment warranted discharge.

The Public Service Grievance Board found that while the complainant's failure to take control of the situation and repeat his direction to open the cell door was serious misconduct, he was not solely responsible.

Applying the McKinley factors, the Board concluded that the employment relationship could be repaired given the complainant's discipline-free record, insight, and remorse.

The termination was substituted with a six-month unpaid suspension and reinstatement.