Kathleen G. O’Neil

The employer alleged that the grievor breached a Memorandum of Settlement resolving his dismissal grievance by launching a civil action against two civil servants.

The employer requested that the Public Service Grievance Board exercise its retained jurisdiction to hear the breach claim.

The grievor argued the Board should decline jurisdiction in deference to the concurrent jurisdiction of the courts over the civil action.

The Vice-Chair held that the Board had jurisdiction pursuant to the settlement agreement and declined to defer to the court, noting the employer was not yet a party to the civil action and the remedy for the alleged breach was not before the court.

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

The grievor alleged she was denied pay increases and that the employer breached a prior settlement agreement by entering notations in her electronic file.

The Board held it lacked jurisdiction over the pay claims because the grievor's position had been transferred to the AMAPCEO bargaining unit, making her subject to the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act.

However, the Board found it retained jurisdiction to hear the allegations regarding the breach of the prior settlement agreement, as it had explicitly remained seized of its implementation.

The grievors, Operational Managers at a detention centre, filed grievances claiming entitlement to certain overtime and escort duty opportunities.

One grievor failed to appear on the first day of the hearing without sufficient explanation, resulting in the dismissal of his grievance.

For the remaining grievor, the Board addressed the preliminary issue of whether an enforceable term or condition of employment existed regarding the assignment of overtime and escort duty.

The Board found that while certain employer policies and memos constituted terms of employment, they did not guarantee escort duty in non-emergency situations and provided no monetary remedy for missed overtime opportunities.

The parties were directed to consider the outstanding grievances in light of these findings.

The grievors, managers at psychiatric hospitals, alleged that the employer breached their terms and conditions of employment when it retroactively recharacterized a portion of their 2004 lump sum pay for performance awards as a base salary increase.

The employer raised a preliminary objection, arguing the grievances disclosed no prima facie case and the issue had been decided in a previous case.

The Public Service Grievance Board upheld the preliminary objection, finding that the employer's retroactive extension of the salary range and corresponding reallocation of the performance award did not decrease the grievors' compensation or breach any enforceable promise.

The grievances were dismissed.

During a hearing concerning a grievance over the denial of tuition assistance, the grievor requested an order for the production of minutes from the Pay Equity Office's Executive Committee.

The employer opposed the request, arguing it was late and a fishing expedition.

The Public Service Grievance Board found that the minutes were not covered by a previous production order but were arguably relevant.

The Board ordered the employer to produce any executive committee minutes concerning the grievor's request for tuition assistance.

During a hearing regarding the denial of tuition assistance for an MBA program, the grievor requested an order for further production of documents from the employer.

The grievor sought documents concerning exemptions applied for by the Pay Equity Commission and records of course approvals for the deciding manager.

The Board granted the request in part, ordering the production of exemption documents limited to a specific timeframe, and ordering the production of the manager's course approval records as they were arguably relevant to the grievor's assertion of a conflict of interest.

The grievor, a former employee who voluntarily retired, filed a grievance claiming compensation for the employer's failure to conduct a performance evaluation and award pay for performance prior to his retirement.

The employer raised preliminary objections, arguing the grievance was barred by Minutes of Settlement signed by the parties and by Regulation 977 under the Public Service Act.

The Public Service Grievance Board upheld the preliminary objections, finding that the comprehensive release in the Minutes of Settlement precluded any further claims arising from the employment relationship.

Furthermore, the Board held it lacked jurisdiction under subsection 31(4) of Regulation 977 to hear complaints regarding the method or outcome of performance evaluations.

The grievance was dismissed without costs.

The grievor, an Operational Manager, claimed entitlement to travel time and expenses for periods she was temporarily assigned to different correctional facilities between 2001 and 2004.

The employer denied the claim, arguing that the facilities were her normal place of work during those periods and that travel expenses were not a guaranteed entitlement for all temporary assignments.

The Public Service Grievance Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the grievor was travelling to her normal place of work during the claimed periods and that the employer's practice of paying travel expenses primarily applied when an employee was requested to move institutions on a temporary basis, which did not apply to the grievor's situation.

The grievors, Operational Managers in the Management Compensation Plan, claimed entitlement to a supervisory shift premium (Management Responsibility Supplement) for periods when they were also entitled to overtime pay.

The employer brought a motion to dismiss the grievance for want of a prima facie case, arguing that section 10.20(2) of Regulation 977 explicitly prohibits receiving both the supplement and overtime for the same period of work.

The Board agreed with the employer, finding the regulatory language plain and unambiguous.

The grievances were dismissed.

The employer brought a motion for an order for production and further particulars from the grievor, who grieved his discharge following a criminal charge for off-duty conduct.

The grievor had been acquitted of the criminal charge.

The employer sought further details of the grievor's explanation for his behaviour.

The Board found that the grievor had provided sufficient particulars in the grievance material and declined to compel disclosure of evidence that might be brought in response to the employer's case.

The Board ordered the grievor to produce the one document he currently intended to rely on, with any further documents or facts to be produced after the employer's case.

Two Operational Managers grieved their salary treatment for discontinuous acting assignments prior to their permanent confirmation.

They argued that their acting assignments should have been treated as continuous or cumulative, which would have resulted in higher salaries due to merit pay eligibility.

The Public Service Grievance Board dismissed the grievances, finding that the employer correctly applied the Pay on Assignment Operating Policy, which treats each assignment as a discrete event.

The Board found no evidence of arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad faith treatment compared to other managers.

The grievor requested an order for production of various documents from the employer relating to a grievance over the denial of tuition assistance.

The Vice-Chair reviewed twenty specific requests for production.

The employer was ordered to produce the Pay Equity Commission's budget records for 1998-2003 and information regarding specific managerial tuition applications, as they were arguably relevant to the grievor's claim of pretext and conflict of interest.

Broader requests for Ministry-wide data and historical records were denied as irrelevant.

The employer brought a preliminary objection to dismiss the grievance without a hearing on the merits.

The grievor, a manager, claimed that the employer's pay policies resulted in newly promoted managers earning more than him, which he argued was unfair and discriminatory.

The Board found that even assuming the grievor's facts were true, he failed to identify a specific term or condition of employment that had been breached.

The general policy statements regarding fairness did not constitute a promise of a specific wage level or guarantee that later-promoted managers would not earn more.

The preliminary objection was granted and the grievance was dismissed.

The grievors, 24 Operational Managers, claimed they were promised a 2% increase to their individual salary rates prior to the application of their 5% pay for performance awards for 2004-2005.

The employer maintained that the 2% increase was an extension to the salary range maximum, not an automatic across-the-board increase to individual rates, and that the 5% merit award was delivered in two steps: progression to the new maximum and a lump sum for the remainder.

The Board found it had jurisdiction to hear the dispute as it concerned the application of basic salary rates rather than the performance evaluation itself.

The Board dismissed the grievances, concluding that the employer's communications did not promise a 2% individual increase prior to the merit awards, and the compensation was implemented as intended under the new performance-based system.

The grievor, an Operational Manager, claimed his salary was incorrectly calculated and sought an ongoing 3% salary increase based on a letter from senior management.

The employer maintained the letter offered a one-time lump sum payment to address pay inequities caused by the timing of promotions.

The Public Service Grievance Board found that the employer's subsequent communications clarified the offer was for a lump sum, not an ongoing salary adjustment.

As there was no mutual agreement on an ongoing salary increase, it did not become an enforceable term of employment.

The grievance was dismissed.

The employer raised a preliminary objection to the arbitrability of the grievor's claim for travel time and expenses from 2001 to 2004, arguing the grievance filed in June 2005 was untimely.

The grievor argued she filed within 14 days of becoming aware of the terms and conditions of employment on which she based her claim, as required by s. 34(1) of Regulation 977.

The Board accepted the grievor's uncontradicted evidence that she only became aware of the employer's policy and practice regarding travel expenses shortly before filing.

The Board dismissed the employer's preliminary objection, finding the grievance was timely based on the subjective awareness test, and directed the matter to proceed to a hearing on the merits.

The grievor, an Operational Manager, claimed mileage expenses for a period during which he was temporarily assigned to the Brockville Jail while awaiting a reporting date to a new facility.

He argued that other managers temporarily assigned to the same jail received travel expenses.

The Public Service Grievance Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the grievor's normal place of work remained the Brockville Jail and he did not experience a change in work location or commute unlike the other managers.

The Board concluded there was no contractual right, policy, or regulation entitling the grievor to the claimed travel expenses.

The grievor sought compensation for travel time and expenses incurred during his assignment to the Ontario Correctional Institute (OCI) before being transferred to his preferred location, Maplehurst Correctional Complex.

The grievor argued that a flawed 2001 mass competition delayed his assignment to Maplehurst, making his time at OCI a temporary assignment for which travel expenses should be paid.

The Public Service Grievance Board dismissed the claim, finding no causal connection between the flawed competition and the travel expenses incurred, as the evidence did not establish that the grievor would have been assigned to Maplehurst earlier had the competition been conducted properly.

The grievor filed a grievance claiming that rules relating to promotional increases were incorrectly applied to him.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the Public Service Grievance Board lacked jurisdiction because the grievor was a member of the AMAPCEO bargaining unit at the time the grievance was filed.

The Board agreed, finding that under section 31(1) of Regulation 977 to The Public Service Act, persons within a bargaining unit are not eligible to file a grievance under that Part.

The grievance was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The employer raised a preliminary objection arguing the Public Service Grievance Board lacked jurisdiction to hear a grievance regarding the denial of tuition assistance, asserting the grievance did not allege a violation of a specific term or condition of employment.

The Board dismissed the objection, finding it had jurisdiction to determine whether the applicable regulation, directives, and policies constituted a working condition or term of employment that was breached.

The matter was ordered to proceed to a hearing on the merits.