Kathleen O’Neil

The union filed grievances alleging that the employer failed to accommodate the grievor.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued an order for the production of the grievor's Disability Accommodation File to the employer's counsel, who must share the documents with the union's counsel.

The documents are subject to a strict confidentiality order and may only be used for the purposes of the litigation.

The complainant, a public service manager, grieved the calculation of his lump sum maintenance payments for 2012 and subsequent years.

He argued that because he had been in a higher-rated acting assignment for part of the 2010-2011 fiscal year, his subsequent maintenance payments during a period of wage restraint should have been calculated as if the acting assignment had never occurred, yielding a higher pro-rated amount for his home position.

The Public Service Grievance Board dismissed the complaint, finding that while the complainant's position was supported by general equities and pre-2011 policies, the strict wording of the post-2011 compensation policies limited the maintenance payment to an amount 'up to' the actual lump sum paid in respect of the 2010-2011 performance cycle.

The complainant, a Probation Manager, filed a grievance alleging that the employer violated the terms and conditions of her employment by denying pay for performance during the 2011/2012 fiscal year wage freeze.

The employer raised a preliminary objection, arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction.

The Public Service Grievance Board upheld the employer's objection, finding that O. Reg. 378/07 explicitly excludes complaints regarding compensation provided or denied as a result of performance evaluation.

The Board also noted it lacked the authority to set new terms and conditions of employment, and dismissed the complaint.

The complainants, non-bargaining unit employees covered by the Management Compensation Plan, filed a grievance regarding the employer's decision to pay a lump sum to employees at the maximum of their salary range while denying it to others during a wage freeze year.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the complaint related to pay for performance and was therefore outside the Board's jurisdiction under O. Reg. 378/07.

The Board agreed, finding that the complaint was essentially about the denial of pay for performance and a request to set new terms and conditions of employment, both of which are beyond its statutory authority.

The complaint was dismissed.

The applicant brought a motion alleging that the employer failed to comply with a settlement agreement and that the agreement contained illegal elements by contracting out of statutory entitlements under the Employment Standards Act.

The applicant sought statutory severance pay, pay in lieu of notice, and damages.

The Public Service Grievance Board found the settlement agreement to be clear, unambiguous, and enforceable.

The Board held that the applicant had released the employer from all claims and that there was no illegality in the agreement.

The motion was dismissed.

The employer brought a motion to dismiss a grievance filed by Operational Managers claiming inadequate training to complete their performance management plans.

The employer argued the Board lacked jurisdiction as the matter related to performance evaluation.

The Board agreed, finding that the complaints about timelines and alleged threats were directly related to the method of evaluating performance, which is excluded from its jurisdiction under Regulation 378/07.

Furthermore, the Board found the grievance failed to establish a prima facie case that any term or condition of employment had been breached.

The grievance was dismissed.

The employer alleged that the grievor breached a Memorandum of Settlement resolving his wrongful dismissal grievance by launching a civil action for defamation and conspiracy against two former colleagues.

The settlement included a broad release of all claims regarding his past employment, a confidentiality clause, and a non-disparagement clause.

The Public Service Grievance Board found that the civil suit breached the settlement, as it attempted to litigate matters related to his past employment that were fully and finally resolved by the agreement.

The Board issued a declaration of breach and remained seized of the remedial aspects.

The grievor filed a grievance alleging the employer failed to accommodate his disability from January 2002 until his voluntary retirement in June 2003.

The grievance was filed in March 2004, over eight months after his retirement.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the grievance due to delay and because the grievor was no longer an employee.

The Public Service Grievance Board allowed the employer's preliminary objection, finding that the delay in grieving was undue and would cause prejudice to the employer, particularly given the intervening voluntary retirement agreement.

The grievance was dismissed.

The grievor withdrew from the proceedings before the Public Service Grievance Board on May 5, 2006.

As a result, the Vice-Chair ordered the proceedings terminated.

The employer raised a preliminary objection to the jurisdiction of the Public Service Grievance Board to hear a grievance filed by nurse managers regarding salary and benefit disparities between their classification and the registered nurses who report to them.

The grievors sought a review of their wages, enhanced benefits, and a new mechanism for assessing managerial compensation.

The Board held that it lacks jurisdiction to set terms and conditions of employment, including compensation levels and compression ratios, as that is the exclusive function of the Civil Service Commission.

However, the Board assumed jurisdiction over the portion of the grievance alleging that the employer breached an established policy or promise by failing to conduct a cyclical salary review, and whether the employer acted arbitrarily or in bad faith in that regard.

The applicants filed a complaint alleging that the union breached the Labour Relations Act by providing insufficient notice for a ratification vote, giving misleading information, and applying undue pressure to accept the contract.

The union brought a motion to dismiss the application for failing to make out a prima facie case.

The Board found that the facts pleaded, even if true, did not establish a violation of the Act.

The notice period was not unduly short, and there were no facts pleaded to show that employees were denied an ample opportunity to vote.

The application was dismissed.