Marilyn A. Nairn

The Employer requested an adjournment of a scheduled hearing date six days prior to the hearing, citing unavailability without providing an explanation.

The Complainant opposed the request.

The Public Service Grievance Board denied the adjournment, noting that the date had been agreed upon at a case conference and the Employer failed to provide any explanation for the late request or the change in availability.

The parties resolved a complaint by entering into a Memorandum of Settlement, but the Employer failed to fully comply with its terms due to payment errors.

Following a case conference, the Public Service Grievance Board ordered the Employer to review and verify the deductions and payments required by the settlement, specifically regarding legal fees, pension deductions, and benefit deductions.

The Complainant was directed to cooperate with reasonable requests to facilitate the correction of any payment errors.

The complainant failed to respond to a previous Board decision confirming his intention to proceed with the remaining aspect of his complaint and providing his availability for a hearing.

Consequently, the Board considered the complaint abandoned and dismissed it.

The complainant alleged that the employer violated the Human Rights Code in applying its performance pay policy.

After failing to provide ordered particulars and failing to respond to the Registrar's scheduling emails, the Board directed the complainant to advise whether he intended to pursue the complaint and to provide his availability for a hearing.

The Board warned that failure to respond by the deadline would result in the complaint being deemed abandoned and dismissed.

The Complainant, a Sergeant at a correctional facility, was terminated following the murder of an inmate by his cellmate.

The Employer alleged the Complainant failed to respond to a report of a possible brew and intoxicated inmate, failed to conduct a security tour, failed to properly report the incident, and refused to cooperate in a section 22 investigation.

The Board found that the Complainant's response to the report of a brew was consistent with the accepted practices at the institution at the time, and that security tours were not mandatory.

However, the Board found cause for discipline regarding his failure to file a timely occurrence report, submitting a report to himself, and refusing to participate in the section 22 investigation (which he did on the advice of criminal counsel).

The Board concluded that termination was excessive, substituting a 1-year suspension and ordering reinstatement with compensation from the date of his criminal acquittal.

The complainant filed a complaint claiming payment for a missed overtime opportunity.

The employer raised a preliminary objection to the Board's jurisdiction because the complainant failed to provide notice of a proposal to file a complaint to the Deputy Minister within 14 days, as required by Ontario Regulation 378/07.

The Board held that the failure to provide this notice is fatal to the complaint, as the Board has no jurisdiction where the dispute resolution process has not run its course.

The complaint was dismissed.

The complainant requested that the Board vary its prior interim decision, which required him to provide more fulsome medical evidence to support his request for an adjournment and accommodation based on disability.

The complainant asserted that confidentiality issues precluded the provision of further medical evidence and requested a file review decision.

The Board dismissed the request to vary, finding no basis to reconsider its earlier decision and noting that confidentiality does not preclude providing medical documentation if consent is given.

The employer's request to dismiss the complaint in its entirety was deferred, and the complainant was directed to comply with the prior directions by the specified deadline.