Brendan Morgan

The complainant, an Operational Manager at a detention centre, grieved a three-day suspension imposed for damaging a computer monitor in a fit of anger.

The complainant argued the discipline was unwarranted because he was suffering from undiagnosed PTSD at the time, which mitigated his conduct, and that he was denied procedural fairness.

The Public Service Grievance Board dismissed the complaint, finding no denial of procedural fairness.

Applying arbitral jurisprudence, the Board held that while the complainant was later diagnosed with PTSD, there was insufficient medical evidence establishing a causal nexus between the diagnosis and the specific act of workplace misconduct to excuse the behaviour.

The Public Service Grievance Board directed the employer to remove the complainant's name from the tracking protocol within fourteen days.

The Vice-Chair remained seized of any issues concerning the implementation of the order.

The complainant requested reconsideration of a previous Board decision dismissing her complaint of reprisal for disclosing wrongdoing.

The complainant argued that her application to the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario constituted a disclosure of wrongdoing.

The Board dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding that the HRTO application could have been raised at the original hearing.

The Board also dismissed the complainant's second complaint regarding her termination, finding that she failed to establish a prima facie case of reprisal and that the complaint was filed outside the mandatory timelines in the Regulation.

The complainant filed a complaint alleging workplace bullying, harassment, and failure to accommodate.

The employer raised preliminary objections arguing that the complaint was filed outside the mandatory time limits set out in O. Reg. 378/07 under the Public Service of Ontario Act.

The Board found that the complainant failed to file her notice to the deputy minister within 14 days of becoming aware of the alleged breach, and failed to file her complaint with the Board within 14 days after the expiry of the dispute resolution period.

As the timelines are mandatory and the Board has no jurisdiction to relieve against them, the complaint was dismissed.

The complainant filed a grievance contesting the employer's decision to deny him a leave of absence to attend a job interview.

The employer raised preliminary objections, arguing the complaint breached the mandatory process and timelines under Regulation 378/07 of the Public Service of Ontario Act, 2006.

The Public Service Grievance Board found that the complaint was filed prematurely, before the expiry of the mandatory 30-day dispute resolution period set out in section 9(5) of the Regulation.

As the Board lacks jurisdiction to amend mandatory time limits, the complaint was dismissed.

The hearing of the complaint was adjourned on consent of the parties.

The Board cancelled the previously scheduled December hearing date and issued directions for the parties to work towards completing an Agreed Statement of Fact.

A timeline was established for drafting and responding to the Agreed Statement of Fact, with a teleconference scheduled to determine its status and any other procedural matters.

The complainant filed a grievance alleging that the employer failed to accommodate her at the workplace following a medical leave of absence due to alleged bullying and harassment.

The employer raised preliminary objections, arguing that the complaint was filed outside the mandatory timelines set out in Regulation 378/07 under the Public Service of Ontario Act.

The Public Service Grievance Board found that the complainant became aware of the alleged violation of a working condition months before filing her notice with the Deputy Minister, and further failed to file her complaint with the Board within 14 days after the expiry of the dispute resolution period.

As the timelines in the Regulation are mandatory, the Board concluded it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the complaint.

The complainant, a public servant, brought a grievance against the Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of the Solicitor General).

Following submissions, the Public Service Grievance Board directed the employer to remove the complainant's name from the tracking protocol within fourteen days.

The Vice-Chair remained seized of any issues concerning the implementation of the order.

The complainant brought a grievance before the Public Service Grievance Board under the Public Service of Ontario Act.

Following submissions, the Vice-Chair directed the employer to remove the complainant's name from the tracking protocol within fourteen days.

The complainant, a Sergeant at a maximum-security correctional facility, grieved two separate disciplinary suspensions.

The first was a one-day suspension for failing to notice and report that an intermittent inmate had not returned to the facility, allowing the inmate to remain unlawfully at large for three days.

The second was a three-day suspension for failing to file a timely occurrence report after learning that a subordinate officer had allowed an inmate to use a personal cellular phone.

The Public Service Grievance Board found that the complainant's conduct in both instances violated workplace policies and reporting requirements.

The Board concluded that both suspensions were reasonable and fair, and dismissed the complaints.

The complainant brought a grievance before the Public Service Grievance Board.

Following submissions, the Vice-Chair directed the employer to remove the complainant's name from the tracking protocol within fourteen days.

The complainant, whose home position was in an OPSEU bargaining unit, filed a complaint regarding her compensation during a temporary assignment to an acting management position.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the Public Service Grievance Board lacked jurisdiction because the complainant remained a member of the bargaining unit during her temporary assignment.

The Board agreed, finding that under Regulation 378/07 and the collective agreement, the complainant continued to pay union dues and was covered by the collective agreement, rendering her ineligible to file a complaint with the Board.

The complaint was dismissed.

The complainant and her representative failed to attend a scheduled mediation session before the Public Service Grievance Board.

The Board noted its authority under Rule 15 to dismiss the complaint for non-attendance but declined to do so immediately, as it was unclear whether the complainant was aware of the scheduled date.

The Board directed the complainant to provide a written explanation for her non-attendance and to confirm whether she wished to proceed with her complaint, failing which the complaint could be dismissed.

The complainant filed a grievance alleging the employer failed to provide a 4% merit increase.

The matter was scheduled for a mediation session, but neither the complainant nor her representative attended.

The employer's counsel was present.

The Vice-Chair noted that the Board's rules permit disposing of a complaint when a party fails to attend.

However, because it was unclear if the complainant was aware of the scheduled mediation, the Board declined to dismiss the complaint immediately.

Instead, the Board directed the complainant to provide a written explanation for her non-attendance and to confirm whether she wished to proceed with her complaint.

The complainant, a correctional officer, alleged that the employer prevented her from accessing long-term disability benefits by failing to complete and submit required documents to the insurance carrier.

The Public Service Grievance Board found that the employer had submitted the necessary "Employer's Statement" and that the delay and subsequent closure of the claim were due to the complainant's own failure to submit the required "Employee's Statement".

The complaint was dismissed for lack of evidence supporting the allegations against the employer.

The complainant filed a grievance alleging the employer failed to accommodate her request for a modified shift schedule based on a medical condition.

The employer asserted it had met its duty to accommodate and raised a preliminary objection regarding the timeliness of the complaint under Regulation 378/07 of the Public Service of Ontario Act, 2016.

Following an initial mediation session, the Board issued an interim decision directing the parties to exchange specific documents and authorities, and scheduled a further mediation session to be followed immediately by an arbitration hearing on the preliminary objection if mediation fails.

The complainant filed a grievance contesting a five-day disciplinary suspension.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the complaint was filed outside the mandatory 14-day time limit set out in Regulation 378/07 under the Public Service of Ontario Act.

The complainant argued that his suspension, work schedule, and health issues prevented him from filing on time.

The Public Service Grievance Board held that the time limits are mandatory and it lacks jurisdiction to relieve against a failure to comply.

The preliminary objection was upheld and the complaint was dismissed.

The parties attended a mediation session which failed to resolve the complaint.

The Employer requested the Board to address its preliminary objection that the complaint was not filed within the notice period required by Ontario Regulation 378/07.

Acknowledging the Complainant needed more time to respond, the Board directed that a teleconference hearing be scheduled solely to hear oral submissions on the timeliness objection.

The complainant filed three complaints alleging the employer withheld documents related to a long-term disability claim, failed to accommodate her, and engaged in workplace harassment.

Following an unsuccessful mediation, the Public Service Grievance Board issued preliminary directions requiring the parties to exchange documents and submissions regarding the disability claim, and scheduled a conference call to determine the next steps for all complaints.

The Public Service Grievance Board issued an addendum to a preliminary decision following a teleconference with the parties.

The Board directed that the upcoming hearing proceed via teleconference, with the initial stage involving mediation.

If mediation proves unsuccessful, the parties are directed to address the employer's preliminary objection regarding the timeliness of the complaint.

The Board also set deadlines for the exchange of documents and authorities.