C. Gordon Simmons

The complainant alleged that the respondents discriminated against her on the basis of sex by refusing to hire her as a warehouse picker/packer and subsequently terminating her employment during her probationary period.

The Board of Inquiry found that the respondents' refusal to hire the complainant was motivated by a determination not to have a female employee in the warehouse.

The Board also found that her subsequent hiring and termination were not bona fide and constituted further discrimination.

The respondents were ordered to pay $28,635 for lost wages and $2,500 for mental anguish.

The complainant alleged she was sexually harassed by two co-workers and that her employer engaged in reprisal by transferring her after she complained.

The Board of Inquiry found that the complainant had initiated the incident by showing the co-workers pornographic materials, but that the co-workers subsequently sexually harassed her when one dropped his pants in front of her.

The Board dismissed the complaints against the employer and its president, finding they had reasonably transferred her to separate her from the co-workers and did not terminate her employment.

The two co-workers were ordered to pay $150 each in general damages.

The grievor, a management-level employee, filed a grievance after receiving a 3% merit increase without the formal notification or consultation required by the employer's Manual of Administration.

The employer raised a preliminary objection, arguing that the Public Service Grievance Board lacked jurisdiction because the Manual of Administration does not constitute 'working conditions or terms of employment' under Regulation 881 of the Public Service Act.

The Board dismissed the preliminary objection, holding that 'working conditions or terms of employment' must be interpreted broadly and encompasses the integrated process of performance appraisal, merit pay determination, and employee consultation.

The Board assumed jurisdiction to hear the grievance on its merits.

The grievor, a bargaining unit employee, filed a grievance seeking reclassification to a position within the Management Compensation Plan.

The employer objected to the jurisdiction of the Grievance Settlement Board, arguing it could not grant the requested remedy, and subsequently objected to the jurisdiction of the Public Service Grievance Board, arguing the matter was a question of status for the Public Service Labour Relations Tribunal.

The Public Service Grievance Board held that neither the Public Service Act nor its regulations prevented jurisdiction, and that denying a hearing would be contrary to progressive labour relations and legislative intent.

The Board concluded that the Classification Rating Committee was the appropriate forum to hear the classification grievance and directed the grievor to apply for a hearing before it.