D.J.D. Leighton

The complainant, a supervisor, grieved that a salary compression between himself and his subordinates violated his working conditions.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the grievance as not arbitrable, arguing the board lacked jurisdiction to rectify salary compression absent an allegation of a specific policy breach, discrimination, or bad faith.

The Public Service Grievance Board found that the Public Service Act gives the Civil Service Commission the exclusive right to set salary ranges for managers, and the temporary compression policy in effect did not require ministries to pay employees in a salary compression.

As there was no allegation of discrimination, arbitrariness, or bad faith, the board concluded it had no jurisdiction to hear the case on the merits and dismissed the grievance.

The complainant, an unrepresented employee, requested an adjournment of his scheduled hearing dates for medical reasons.

The employer opposed the adjournment and brought a motion to dismiss the complaints due to the complainant's failure to attend and lack of medical evidence.

The Board suspended its decision on the motion and ordered the complainant to provide medical evidence supporting his inability to attend.

The complainant subsequently provided a doctor's letter confirming his medical condition prevented his attendance.

The Board granted the adjournment and denied the employer's motion to dismiss, finding that the complainant had satisfied the requirements of the Board's order and that granting the adjournment was fair in the circumstances.

The grievor, a Group Manager Audit with the Ministry of Finance, grieved his termination for conflict of interest.

The employer alleged he operated a private accounting and bookkeeping business for various clients, including some he audited, while employed by the Ministry.

The grievor denied the allegations, claiming the business belonged to his brother.

The Public Service Grievance Board found the grievor's evidence lacked credibility and concluded he had operated the business, issued clearance certificates to his own clients who were suppressing sales, and used his position for personal gain.

The Board held this was a serious conflict of interest and breach of trust justifying dismissal.

The grievance was dismissed.

The grievors, Operational Managers, filed grievances claiming inadequate compensation for statutory holidays, seeking 12 hours of lieu time retroactively to match a benefit awarded to bargaining unit members.

The employer objected that the grievances were untimely and without merit.

The Public Service Grievance Board dismissed the grievances, finding that a four-year delay in filing was unjustified.

Furthermore, the Board held that management employees have no legal entitlement to benefits solely because they were granted to bargaining unit members under a collective agreement.

The grievor, a former Cartography Supervisor, filed a grievance alleging he was underclassified and seeking retroactive pay increases equivalent to those awarded to bargaining unit cartographers.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the grievance as inarbitrable.

The Public Service Grievance Board granted the motion, finding that it lacked jurisdiction to hear classification grievances or claims based on bargaining unit awards absent allegations of bad faith or discrimination.

The Board also noted the grievance was untimely, as the grievor had known of the issues since 1989 and 1995 but did not grieve until 1997.

The grievance was dismissed.

The grievors, operational managers at a detention centre, sought overtime compensation for all hours during a 35-day strike, including time spent at home resting.

They argued they were promised 'significant recognition' and believed managers at another institution were paid for the entire strike duration.

The Public Service Grievance Board dismissed the grievances, finding that the applicable Order-in-Council did not authorize overtime pay for time not worked in the institution, no clear promise of such payment was made, and evidence showed managers at the other institution were only paid for actual overtime hours worked.

The grievors, Schedule 6 managers, sought compensation for time spent on standby during the 1996 OPSEU strike.

They filed their grievances 18 months after the strike ended.

The Public Service Grievance Board found that Order-in-Council 2161/90 did not provide standby pay for Schedule 6 employees, and there was insufficient evidence of a clear promise by the employer to pay them.

The Board also held that the 18-month delay in filing the grievances was unjustified, despite the grievors' belief that they would eventually be compensated.

The grievances were dismissed on both the merits and timeliness.

The grievor, a former Employment Equity Manager, filed four grievances against the Ministry of Transportation.

She alleged that her transfer to a Project Manager position was arbitrary, discriminatory, and the culmination of a series of acts of sexual discrimination and harassment.

She also grieved the employer's handling of a harassment complaint made against her by a subordinate, and the employer's decision not to grant her an interview for a subsequent Employment Equity Manager competition.

The Public Service Grievance Board dismissed all four grievances.

The Board found that the transfer was made for legitimate business reasons and to remove the grievor from a discordant work environment, not for discriminatory reasons.

The Board also found no breach of the duty of fairness in the handling of the complaint against her, and concluded that the decision not to interview her for the competition was a reasonable, conscious decision by the employer.

The grievors challenged the results of a job competition for the new position of Control and Risk Analyst, alleging the selection process was unfair.

The competition utilized a simulation exercise evaluated by a three-person panel using a consensus scoring method, where a single zero score eliminated a candidate.

The Public Service Grievance Board found that the consensus marking scheme was a significant and serious flaw, as it resulted in panel members surrendering their individual judgment.

The grievances were granted, and the employer was ordered to re-run the competition for the affected positions if the parties could not agree to reassess the candidates based on their individual scores.

The grievor filed a grievance alleging the employer failed to provide a healthy and safe work environment, resulting in permanent bronchial damage, and sought a transfer to accommodate his medical condition.

During the course of the proceedings, the grievor obtained a permanent, full-time position at a higher classification with another Ministry.

The employer brought a motion to dismiss the grievance for mootness.

The Public Service Grievance Board granted the motion, finding that the factual underpinnings of the case had been eliminated and there was no longer a live controversy or remedy to grant.

The grievor's request for legal and relocation costs was also denied as there was no evidence of bad faith by the employer.

The grievor filed a grievance alleging non-performance of a settlement agreement.

The agreement provided for an $8,000 payment less statutory deductions.

The grievor argued that the payment should be treated as pensionable earnings and that pension deductions should not have been made from the portion designated for legal fees.

The Employer conceded administrative errors regarding deductions from the legal fees portion and a pension deduction from the balance, owing the grievor $658.23.

The Board dismissed the grievance, finding the settlement agreement's language clear and unambiguous, with no requirement to treat the payment as pensionable earnings.

The grievor, a manager, filed a grievance alleging that the employer breached a longstanding policy that managers should not make less than the people they supervise, resulting in a salary inversion.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the grievance for lack of jurisdiction, arguing that the Board has no power to alter salary ranges set by Cabinet.

The Board dismissed the employer's motion, finding that it has jurisdiction to hear complaints alleging a breach of working conditions or terms of employment, including allegations that an existing policy regarding salary compression was violated.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the grievor's complaint for lack of jurisdiction.

The grievor, a professional engineer reclassified to the Senior Management Group, alleged that the employer breached a policy by not applying a retroactive salary increase to his classification, resulting in salary compression where subordinates earned more than him.

The employer argued the Board lacked jurisdiction to set salary ranges or address salary compression.

The Board held that while it cannot set salary ranges, it has jurisdiction to adjudicate whether a policy forming part of the working conditions or terms of employment was breached.

The motion to dismiss was denied.

The grievor, a manager, was accused of sexual harassment and harassment by a bargaining unit employee.

The employer investigated the complaints, which were ultimately found to be unsubstantiated and withdrawn.

The grievor filed a grievance alleging the employer breached its duty of fairness in conducting the investigation.

The Public Service Grievance Board found that the employer breached its duty of fairness due to unreasonable delay, failure to provide particulars of the allegations for three months, failure to advise the grievor of his right to representation, and failure to keep him informed.

The Board further found that the employer's mishandling of the investigation caused the grievor severe stress, leading to a prolonged sick leave.

The grievance was granted, and the employer was ordered to compensate the grievor for lost income and benefits during his sick leave.

The Grievor, an Acting Manager of an ambulance service, was dismissed for cause following allegations of ongoing sexual and racial harassment, including inappropriate touching and comments directed at female subordinates.

The Grievor admitted to some inappropriate comments but denied physical contact.

The Public Service Grievance Board found the testimony of the female subordinates credible and concluded that the Grievor engaged in serious misconduct amounting to sexual assault and an abuse of power.

The Board upheld the termination, finding that progressive discipline was not appropriate given the severity of the misconduct.

A dissenting member argued that the penalty was too harsh and that the employer shared blame for tolerating a 'boys club' culture.