E. A. Black

The grievor, a public servant, alleged that he was wrongly denied a position in the Executive Compensation Plan after his former position was abolished and he was assigned to a lower-classified position with salary protection.

The employer raised preliminary objections regarding timeliness, procedure, and the Board's jurisdiction to order an appointment to the executive level.

The Board dismissed the preliminary objections, finding the grievance timely and within its jurisdiction.

On the merits, the Board found that the grievor's former position was abolished under Section 17 of the Regulations, which only provides salary protection, rather than reclassified under Section 16, which would entitle him to the first available position at his former level.

The grievance was dismissed.

The grievor, a dentist at a regional centre, was suspended with pay for the remainder of the day following an altercation with his supervisor.

He was subsequently suspended without pay for successive twenty-day periods pending an investigation into his professional fitness by the Royal College of Dental Surgeons.

The grievor filed grievances alleging improper suspension and seeking damages.

The Public Service Grievance Board found it had jurisdiction to hear the suspension grievances, determining they were disciplinary in nature.

The Board held that the initial suspension for the remainder of the day was justified due to insubordination, but the subsequent suspensions without pay were improper because the employer failed to conduct its own hearing as required by the regulations and instead relied on an external investigation.

The claims for damages and costs were dismissed as they were raised too late in the proceedings.

The grievor, a manager at the Guelph Correctional Centre, grieved that his salary was lower than that of a subordinate bargaining unit employee due to wage restraints.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the Public Service Grievance Board lacked jurisdiction to alter salaries established by the Civil Service Commission or negotiated in a collective agreement.

The Board agreed, finding it had no authority to increase or decrease wages established for the Management Compensation Plan or the bargaining unit.

The grievance was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The grievor, a bargaining unit employee, filed a grievance alleging that a job competition for a non-bargaining unit management position was not held in good faith and that his war service preference rights under Regulation 881 were violated.

The Grievance Settlement Board previously found it lacked jurisdiction because the position was outside the bargaining unit.

The grievance was then referred to the Public Service Grievance Board.

The employer raised a preliminary objection to jurisdiction.

The Board held that bargaining unit employees must rely on the collective agreement and the Grievance Settlement Board, while the Public Service Grievance Board only has jurisdiction over non-bargaining unit employees claiming a violation of the Public Service Act or Regulation 881.

The grievance was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The grievor alleged she was improperly demoted when she was removed from a position in the Management Compensation Plan and placed into a bargaining unit position.

The employer argued the Public Service Grievance Board lacked jurisdiction because the grievor was now in the bargaining unit, and that the Ontario Public Service Labour Relations Tribunal should determine her status.

The Board held that it, or a Classification Rating Committee, has jurisdiction to hear the grievance because the grievor would not be permitted to pursue her grievance before the Grievance Settlement Board or the Tribunal, and the event giving rise to the grievance occurred while she was in the Management Compensation Plan.

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.