Barry Fisher

The complainant filed a grievance seeking a retroactive 3% wage increase, arguing he had been performing the duties of a Staff Sergeant since February 2023, although his official promotion and wage increase were only implemented on January 8, 2024.

The employer raised a preliminary objection regarding timeliness, arguing the complaint was filed more than 14 days after the complainant was notified of the effective date.

The Board dismissed the preliminary objection, finding the 14-day period began when the complainant was informed of his specific individual increase.

On the merits, the Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the employer never promised a specific timeframe for the promotion.

The delay was caused by an Ontario Labour Relations Board ruling requiring a competitive process for related positions, and there was no bad faith or breach of a term of employment.

The complainant sought reconsideration of an earlier decision upholding the employer's preliminary objection that he was excluded from filing a complaint under the Public Service of Ontario Act.

The Board applied its restrictive approach to reconsideration requests.

Although the complainant presented evidence that he worked sufficient hours to avoid exclusion under two categories, he admitted he was employed for a fixed term on an irregular or on-call basis at the time of his termination.

The Board dismissed the reconsideration request, noting the complainant could pursue a civil action for wrongful dismissal.

The employer brought a preliminary objection regarding the timeliness of the complainant's Form 1 filing.

The complainant did not attend the hearing.

The Board found that the Form 1 was filed on January 9, 2025, well past the 14-day deadline following the December 11, 2024 denial of the grievance.

As the filing was out of time, the Board concluded it had no jurisdiction to hear the case and dismissed the complaint.

The Complainant applied to the Public Service Grievance Board alleging a failure to accommodate by the employer.

During mediation, it became clear that the Complainant's Long Term Income Protection file was relevant.

The Vice Chair ordered the insurance carrier to provide copies of the file to the parties and the Board.