J.A. Willes

The Grievor was appointed by Order-in-Council as a member of the Rent Review Hearings Board for a one-year term.

After her term expired and was not renewed, she filed a grievance alleging improper dismissal.

The Employer raised a preliminary objection that the Grievor was not a public servant under the Public Service Act and therefore the Public Service Grievance Board lacked jurisdiction.

The Board agreed, finding that the Grievor was appointed under the Residential Rent Regulation Act, which explicitly states that members are not public servants.

The grievance was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The grievor, a former management employee of the Workers' Compensation Board, filed a grievance alleging wrongful dismissal.

The employer raised a preliminary objection, arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction because the grievor was not a public servant under the Public Service Act.

The Public Service Grievance Board agreed, finding that the grievor was hired by the Chair of the Workers' Compensation Board, a Schedule III Crown Agency, and was not employed under the jurisdiction of a Deputy Minister as required by section 36(1) of Regulation 977.

The grievance was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The grievor, a unit manager at a detention centre, filed a grievance alleging that he was targeted by the union and subjected to a campaign of harassment, including a withdrawn sexual harassment complaint and an abandoned disciplinary investigation.

He sought the removal of negative reports from his file, priority for future promotions, and financial compensation for lost vacation credits and legal costs.

The Public Service Grievance Board allowed the grievance in part, ordering the employer to purge the grievor's file of all references to the sexual harassment complaint and the abandoned disciplinary hearing.

The Board dismissed the claims for promotional priority and financial compensation, finding no wrongdoing by the employer that would justify such relief.

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.

Following a successful grievance arbitration, the grievor submitted a bill of costs for legal expenses.

The employer refused to pay, arguing the Public Service Grievance Board lacked jurisdiction to award costs.

The Board held that its remedial authority implicitly includes the power to award reasonable legal costs to restore a successful grievor to their rightful financial position.

After reviewing the grievor's counsel's time records, the Board reduced the claimed amount of $46,797.18 and fixed reasonable legal costs at $14,047.18.

The grievor, a Senior Policy Advisor, filed a grievance alleging that a job competition was awarded without due consideration of merit and was influenced by discrimination.

The employer raised a preliminary objection, arguing that the grievance should be dismissed because the Board lacked jurisdiction to grant the requested remedies, asserting that the only available remedy would be a re-run of the competition.

The Board dismissed the preliminary objection, finding that it has jurisdiction to hear complaints related to position competitions under the Public Service Act, although it noted that the usual remedy for a flawed competition is indeed a remission back to the employer to re-run the competition.

The grievor, a probationary employee, was released from her employment pursuant to s. 22(5) of the Public Service Act.

She filed a grievance alleging wrongful dismissal.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the Public Service Grievance Board lacked jurisdiction to hear the grievance because the grievor was released during her first year of employment.

The Board held that it lacked jurisdiction to deal with the grievance of a probationary employee released under s. 22(5) of the Act, as such employees are excluded by s. 42(1) of Regulation 881.

The grievance was dismissed.