D. Leighton

The grievor was released from his position as a Treasury Policy Advisor due to a ministry reorganization and downsizing, but was subsequently redeployed to another ministry at the same classification and salary.

He filed a grievance alleging his release was a disguised dismissal.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the grievance, arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction to review a release under s. 22(4) of the Public Service Act and that the matter was moot due to the redeployment.

The Board held that while it has jurisdiction to review a release if bad faith is alleged, the grievor failed to provide any evidence of bad faith.

The Board concluded it had no grounds to review the employer's business decision and dismissed the grievance.

The Grievor, a Provincial Medical Toxicologist, was declared surplus and her position abolished during a major downsizing initiative by the Ministry of Labour.

She grieved the termination, alleging it was done in bad faith and was a disguised dismissal based on discrimination regarding her previous leaves of absence.

The Public Service Grievance Board found that the Employer made a legitimate business decision to eliminate the position under the Expenditure Control Program.

The Board concluded the Grievor failed to satisfy the onus of proving bad faith, discrimination, or unfairness in the decision-making process, and dismissed the grievance.

The grievor filed a grievance seven years after being disciplined via demotion, arguing he only recently discovered a policy prohibiting demotion as discipline.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the grievance for excessive delay.

The Public Service Grievance Board granted the motion and dismissed the grievance, finding that a seven-year delay was unreasonable and inherently prejudicial to the employer, as the grievor had a responsibility to inquire into his rights at the time of the discipline.

The grievor, a bargaining unit employee represented by OPSEU, was seconded to a management position.

Her secondment was terminated early, and she filed a grievance with the Public Service Grievance Board after OPSEU advised they could not assist her.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

The Board held that under the collective agreement and the Public Service Act, a bargaining unit employee seconded to a management position retains their rights under the collective agreement.

Therefore, the Grievance Settlement Board, not the Public Service Grievance Board, had jurisdiction.

The grievance was dismissed.

The grievor filed a grievance objecting that he was not interviewed for an Area Appraisal Analyst position.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the grievance was not arbitrable, arguing that management has the right to select whom to interview and there was no allegation of bias or procedural flaw.

The Public Service Grievance Board agreed with the employer, finding that it lacked jurisdiction to second-guess management's selection of interviewees absent allegations of a flawed, biased, or discriminatory process.

The grievance was dismissed as not arbitrable.

The grievor filed a grievance alleging wrongful termination from her position at the Liquor License Board of Ontario.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the Public Service Grievance Board lacked jurisdiction because the grievor was hired under the Liquor License Act, not the Public Service Act.

The Board agreed, finding that the grievor was not employed under the jurisdiction of a Deputy Minister as required by Regulation 977, and dismissed the grievance for lack of jurisdiction.

The grievor, a professional engineer, sought a retroactive salary increase for 1990 based on an interest arbitration award released in 1991.

Before the award was released, the grievor was promoted to the Senior Management Group (SMG), which is excluded from bringing working conditions grievances to the Public Service Grievance Board.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the grievance for lack of jurisdiction.

The Board denied the motion, finding that the grievor was complaining about a matter that occurred while he was in a classification entitled to grieve, and he did not lose this right merely because he was subsequently promoted.

The grievor, a medical consultant, was released from her employment with the Ministry of Labour due to budget cuts under the Expenditure Control Plan.

The employer used an assessment process to determine which of the five medical consultants would be retained.

The grievor alleged that the assessment was unfair and inaccurate, leading to her wrongful release.

The Public Service Grievance Board found that the assessment process was fundamentally flawed and lacked procedural fairness, as it was conducted hastily, contained significant errors, and provided no opportunity for the incumbents to be interviewed or review their assessments.

The grievance was granted, and the grievor was awarded compensation equal to seven months of notice.

The grievors, former employees of the Liquor Control Board of Ontario (LCBO), filed grievances alleging wrongful dismissal.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the Public Service Grievance Board lacked jurisdiction because the grievors were hired under the Liquor Control Act and were 'crown employees' rather than 'public servants' under the Public Service Act.

The Board agreed, finding that its jurisdiction under Regulation 977 is limited to persons employed in the public service under the jurisdiction of a Deputy Minister.

As the LCBO does not appoint under the Public Service Act, the Board dismissed the grievances for lack of jurisdiction.

The Grievor was released from his employment on the last day of his one-year probationary period.

He filed grievances alleging wrongful dismissal and improper working conditions.

The Employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the grievances for lack of jurisdiction, arguing that under section 22(5) of the Public Service Act, a probationary employee released within the first year has no right to a hearing on the merits.

The Grievor argued he had completed his probationary period by working on the final day.

The Public Service Grievance Board held that releasing the employee on the 365th day satisfied the statutory requirement for termination within the first year.

The Board concluded it lacked jurisdiction to hear the dismissal grievance or the working conditions grievance, and dismissed both.

The grievor, a management employee, filed a grievance alleging he was denied an interview for a bargaining unit position.

The employer raised a preliminary objection regarding the Board's jurisdiction.

The Board determined that while the grievor had the right to apply for the position, the Board lacked jurisdiction to inquire into the employer's assessment of applicants or the selection process.

As these matters fall within the collective agreement and the jurisdiction of the Grievance Settlement Board, and the grievor's application was in fact considered, the grievance was dismissed.