Jayashree Sengupta

The Complainant, a Manager of Air Approvals, alleged that the Employer failed to accommodate his disability when it removed him from his home position and placed him in a Health Reassignment Program.

Following a return from extended leave, the Complainant worked two days a week with modified duties.

When updated medical information indicated his restrictions were permanent, the Employer determined he could no longer perform the essential duties of the managerial role.

The Complainant subsequently retired and alleged he did so under duress.

The Public Service Grievance Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the Employer had met its procedural and substantive duty to accommodate, as it was not required to permanently carve out essential duties or create a new position.

The Board also found no evidence that the retirement was made under duress.

The complainant, an 18-year employee of the Ontario Public Service, filed a complaint alleging she was paid less than a newly hired male colleague for discriminatory reasons.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the Board lacked jurisdiction because the complaint was not filed within the 14-day timeline set out in section 8 of Ontario Regulation 378/07.

The Board agreed, finding that the complainant filed her Notice of Proposal 6 days late and that the Board lacks discretion to extend the mandatory timelines.

The complaint was dismissed.

The complainant, a former public servant, filed a grievance regarding his dismissal without cause and preceding events, including a leave of absence and workplace investigation.

The employer raised a preliminary objection, arguing the Public Service Grievance Board lacked jurisdiction under the Public Service of Ontario Act, 2006 and O. Reg. 378/07 to hear complaints about dismissals without cause.

The Board agreed, finding that the regulation explicitly excludes dismissals without cause from its jurisdiction.

Furthermore, the Board held that even if the complaint concerned working conditions prior to dismissal, the complainant was no longer a public servant when he filed his Notice of Proposal, precluding him from grieving those matters.

The complaint was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The Employer raised a preliminary objection to the Board's jurisdiction, arguing that the Complainant was no longer a public servant when he filed his complaint about working conditions, having retired a few days prior.

The Complainant had given his Notice of Proposal to file a complaint before his retirement date.

The Board dismissed the Employer's objection, finding that under O. Reg 378/07, the Complainant's eligibility to file a complaint was established on the date he gave his Notice of Proposal, at which time he was still a public servant.

The Complainant's subsequent retirement while waiting for the mandatory dispute resolution period to expire did not remove the Board's jurisdiction.