Kathleen G. O’Neil

The grievor alleged that the employer breached a term or condition of her employment by returning her to her home position from a secondment in August 2004, claiming that a dysfunctional work environment negatively affected her health.

At the hearing, the employer brought a motion to dismiss the grievance for failing to establish a prima facie case.

The Public Service Grievance Board granted the motion and dismissed the grievance, finding no medical evidence that the grievor had a health problem preventing her return in the summer of 2004, nor any evidence that the employer breached a term or condition of employment.

The grievors, managers at Developmental Services Facilities, filed grievances claiming they should have received double time for all hours worked during the 2002 OPSEU strike, similar to managers in correctional facilities.

The employer brought preliminary motions arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction over group grievances, the grievances were untimely, and they failed to disclose a prima facie case.

The Board dismissed the grievances on the basis that they did not establish a prima facie case.

The grievors were paid in accordance with the applicable regulation, and there was no contractual promise or term of employment entitling them to the more generous overtime payments received by correctional facility managers.

The grievor filed a grievance claiming entitlement to ongoing travel time, mileage, and lunches between his home in Oshawa and the Mimico Correctional Institute, retroactive to October 20, 2003.

The employer argued the grievance was out of time, but the Board ruled it a continuing grievance.

On the merits, the Board found that the grievor's normal place of work was Mimico, and he was not entitled to travel expenses under the applicable regulations or policies.

The grievance was dismissed.

The employer brought preliminary motions to dismiss several grievances filed by Operational Managers regarding their pay, arguing the grievances were untimely and beyond the Board's jurisdiction.

The grievances raised issues such as salary compression, pay on promotion, and credit for acting assignments.

The Board dismissed the portions of the grievances claiming an entitlement to a review of experience for a 'better than average' promotional increase, finding no arguable breach of policy.

However, the Board allowed the grievances relating to breaks in service during acting assignments and the maintenance of a 3% differential above direct reports to proceed to a hearing on the merits, finding they raised arguable continuing grievances within the Board's jurisdiction.

The grievors, a group of nurse managers, filed a grievance alleging they were denied a salary review to which they were entitled and were treated arbitrarily regarding salary and benefit disparities, specifically wage compression compared to their subordinates.

The employer argued that the process for setting managerial compensation does not involve direct input from managers at the grievors' level and that no specific cyclical review was guaranteed by policy.

The Public Service Grievance Board found that the employer's policies did not entitle the grievors to a specific type or process of salary review, and that they had been included in the cyclical salary reviews applied to other managers.

The Board concluded there was no evidence of arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad faith treatment, and dismissed the grievance.

The grievor withdrew his grievance at the conclusion of mediation.

The Public Service Grievance Board recorded the withdrawal and terminated the proceeding without setting a hearing date.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the employee's grievance alleging workplace harassment and a poisoned work environment.

The employer argued the grievance was untimely, moot, and outside the Board's jurisdiction.

The Board dismissed the portions of the grievance relating to incidents from 2001 to 2003 due to excessive delay.

The Board also found that complaints regarding performance evaluations and related compensation were statutorily excluded from its jurisdiction.

However, the Board held that the allegation concerning the employee's forced return to her home position for health reasons in 2004 was timely, within jurisdiction, and not moot, allowing that specific issue to proceed to a hearing.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the employee's grievance regarding tuition assistance due to delay and failure to provide full particulars.

The Board found that the delay in scheduling the hearing was not solely attributable to the employee, as some delay was due to medical leave and administrative issues.

While the Board declined to dismiss the grievance for failure to provide particulars, it directed the employee to provide specific details regarding the alleged breaches of the Public Service Act and the basis for his complaint before the employer would be required to respond to his disclosure requests.

The grievor, a member of the OPSEU bargaining unit in an acting management position, grieved the denial of a managerial posting.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the Public Service Grievance Board lacked jurisdiction because the grievor was a bargaining unit member.

The Board upheld the objection, finding that section 31(1) of Regulation 977 to the Public Service Act explicitly excludes persons within a collective bargaining unit from filing a grievance under that Part.

The grievance was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The employer raised a preliminary objection to the Board's jurisdiction to hear a grievance from management employees regarding changes to their benefit plan, specifically the reduction in orthopaedic shoes and the rolling of the Employment Insurance premium refund into benefits.

The Board dismissed the grievance, finding no prima facie case that a term or condition of employment had been violated.

The Board held that comparisons to bargaining unit benefits could not form the basis of a manager's grievance, and the grievors failed to establish a legal entitlement to the previous benefit levels or a mandatory consultation process under the Employment Insurance Act.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the grievor's pay on promotion grievance on the basis of delay.

The grievor filed the grievance in April 2003, complaining about compensation for acting assignments and promotions dating back to 1998.

The grievor argued he only became aware of the relevant policies in March 2003.

The Board found the grievor's explanation for the delay credible and reasonable, noting he acted promptly upon becoming aware of the policies.

The Board concluded that the employer would not be inevitably prejudiced by the delay and dismissed the preliminary motion, allowing the grievance to proceed to a hearing on the merits.

The employer requested particulars regarding a grievance alleging failure to properly implement the pay for performance policy and failure to follow compensation policies for acting assignments.

The Public Service Grievance Board adjourned the hearing on consent and deferred the pay for performance issue pending the reconsideration of a related decision.

The Board ordered the grievor to provide specific particulars regarding the policy failure issue, including the material facts, dates, and representatives involved, by June 22, 2004.