Brian Smeenk

The complainants, two Sergeants at the Toronto South Detention Centre, filed applications alleging the Employer breached their terms and conditions of employment during an organizational restructuring.

The Employer had offered the complainants a 'final and binding' election to be reclassified as Correctional Supervisors, which they accepted.

However, following a separate grievance arbitration decision that found the direct assignment of non-union staff to the new unionized positions violated the collective agreement, the Employer reneged on the elections and required the complainants to compete for the positions.

The Public Service Grievance Board found that the Employer breached the binding contractual agreements created by the elections.

The Board also found that the Employer violated its Employment Policy by failing to notify the complainants about the union grievances and arbitration that jeopardized their reclassifications, and by delaying communication of the arbitration decision.

The complaints were allowed in part, with remedial issues deferred to a separate hearing.

The employer requested the consolidation of two complaints brought by different employees arising from the same job competition for a Corporal/Correctional Supervisor position.

The employer argued that the complaints shared common questions of law and fact, including a jurisdictional objection regarding the collective agreement.

The Chair of the Public Service Grievance Board found significant overlap in evidence and argument and re-assigned the second complaint to the Vice Chair handling the first complaint, leaving the final determination on consolidation or concurrent hearings to that Vice Chair.

The complainant, a former Sergeant at a correctional centre, was reassigned to a Staff Sergeant position during an organizational restructuring.

He filed a complaint alleging that the changes to his uniform and rank title were arbitrary and degrading, and that the Employer exercised undue influence in forcing him to elect the new position.

The Employer raised a preliminary objection to the Board's jurisdiction.

The Public Service Grievance Board upheld the preliminary objection, finding that the essence of the complaint was the complainant's assignment to a particular class of position.

Under section 4(2)(2) of Ontario Regulation 378/07, the Board lacks jurisdiction to hear complaints regarding the assignment of a public servant to a particular class of position.

The complaint was dismissed with respect to these issues.

The complainant, a Sergeant at the Toronto South Detention Centre, failed to comply with a Board order to confirm his intention to proceed with his application regarding an 8-hour disciplinary suspension.

He also failed to appear at the scheduled hearing.

The employer brought a motion to dismiss the application as abandoned.

Although the Board noted the employer's failure to comply with its own documentary disclosure obligations, it found this failure moot given the complainant's abandonment.

The application was dismissed.

The complainant, a Sergeant at a detention centre, filed a grievance alleging anti-Black racism and bullying over a two-year period, as well as an unjustified 8-hour disciplinary suspension.

The employer raised preliminary objections, arguing the application was abandoned, the complaints about the prior incidents were untimely, and the suspension complaint was premature and tainted by ex parte communications between the complainant and the Board's Registrar.

The Board held that the application was not abandoned and that the suspension complaint was timely and untainted, as the Registrar provided permissible legal information rather than advice.

However, the Board found it lacked jurisdiction to consider the prior incidents for remedial purposes because the complaint was filed outside the mandatory 14-day time limit under Ontario Regulation 378/07.

The complainant, a Staff Sergeant, alleged that the employer eliminated her previous position as Sergeant in bad faith to prevent Sergeants from unionizing.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the Public Service Grievance Board lacked jurisdiction.

The Board upheld the objection, finding that the essence of the complaint was an unfair labour practice allegation, which falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The application was dismissed.

The Employer raised preliminary objections regarding the Board's jurisdiction to hear complaints from two Sergeants about their treatment during an organizational restructuring.

The Complainants alleged the Employer breached a binding agreement regarding their reclassification, required them to compete in an unfair process, and violated employment policies.

The Board dismissed the Employer's preliminary objections, finding that the complaints related to working conditions and terms of employment, which fall within the Board's jurisdiction, rather than the assignment to a particular class of position, which is excluded.

The Board issued procedural directions following a case management meeting regarding a grievance under the Public Service of Ontario Act.

The Employer failed to include its position on a Charter argument in its response, and the Complainant failed to properly stipulate agreed and disputed facts.

The Board directed both parties to comply with the previous directions and set a deadline of May 31, 2024, for the Employer to complete its response and for the parties to file a Statement of Agreed Facts and any further allegations.

The Public Service Grievance Board issued procedural directions to the parties regarding the filing of agreed facts and written submissions for the employer's preliminary objections.

The parties had previously merged factual assertions with arguments without producing a statement of agreed facts.

The Board directed the employer to file a complete response and ordered the parties to consult and file a Statement of Agreed Facts, along with any disputed facts, by specified deadlines.

The Public Service Grievance Board issued procedural directions to the parties regarding the filing of agreed facts and written submissions for the employer's preliminary objections.

The parties had previously merged their factual assertions with their arguments and failed to produce a statement of agreed facts.

The Board directed the employer to file its complete response, and the parties to consult and file a Statement of Agreed Facts, along with any statements of further allegations for disputed facts, followed by a schedule for arguments and replies.

The complainant, a civilian employee with the OPP, filed a complaint alleging the employer grossly mishandled a workplace investigation and breached its duty of fairness.

The employer raised preliminary objections, arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction as no term or condition of employment was breached, and that the complaint was untimely.

The Public Service Grievance Board dismissed the objections, finding the complainant established a prima facie case that the employer's respectful workplace policy and duty of fairness constituted terms of employment.

The Board also held that while some earlier events fell outside the mandatory 14-day limitation period, recent communications within the period constituted timely allegations of ongoing breaches.

The Complainant, a Sergeant, filed a grievance challenging his treatment during a Ministry restructuring that offered him a choice between a promotion to Staff Sergeant or reclassification to an OPSEU-represented Correctional Supervisor position.

The Employer brought a preliminary objection arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction over classification assignments and that the complaint failed to disclose a prima facie case.

The Board dismissed the application without a hearing, finding that the Complainant had elected the promotion and thus his complaint regarding the pension consequences of the unselected reclassification option was moot.

The application alleged no violation of existing terms and conditions of employment.

The Employer brought a motion requesting that the Complainant provide further and better particulars of her allegations of discrimination, harassment, and condonation in her applications challenging a suspension and termination.

The Complainant opposed the motion, requested that portions of the Employer's pleadings be struck, and opposed the Employer's request that the Chair take a view of the workplace.

The Board ordered the Complainant to provide particulars for specific factual allegations but not for conclusory statements.

The Board declined to strike the Employer's pleadings as the disclosure process was ongoing.

The parties were directed to seek agreement on the conditions and timing for taking a view of the workplace.

The complainant, a Sergeant at the Toronto South Detention Centre, brought a preliminary motion to void a 20-day suspension and her subsequent termination due to the employer's delay in imposing discipline.

The employer had investigated numerous allegations of lateness, early departures, and falsification of attendance records over several months before notifying the complainant.

The Public Service Grievance Board found that the employer's delay in addressing the culpable attendance allegations was unreasonable and prejudiced the complainant's ability to defend herself.

The board set aside the culpable attendance allegations for both the suspension and termination, but reserved its decision on the falsification of records and other allegations until the hearing on the merits.

The complainant filed a grievance alleging breach of promise regarding a temporary assignment, failure to accommodate based on disability and family status, and peer harassment.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the notice of proposal to file a complaint was not given within the mandatory 14-day time limit under Regulation 378/07 of the Public Service of Ontario Act.

The Board upheld the preliminary objection regarding the termination of the temporary assignment and the peer harassment, finding those complaints were untimely.

However, the Board dismissed the preliminary objection regarding the ongoing failure to accommodate after the temporary assignment ended, finding that issue was still live and timely when the notice was filed.

The applicant filed an application under the Public Service of Ontario Act, 2006, requesting the Public Service Grievance Board to permanently remove a Grievance Settlement Board decision from the database.

The Board dismissed the application, finding it had no jurisdiction to deal with matters that were or should be before the Grievance Settlement Board.