Marilyn A. Nairn

The complainant, a Health Care Manager in a correctional institution, filed a complaint claiming temporary pandemic pay.

The complaint was held in abeyance pending the outcome of a representative complaint, which was ultimately dismissed.

The Board directed the complainant to provide submissions on how she intended to proceed in light of the representative decision, warning that failure to respond could result in dismissal without a hearing.

The complainant failed to respond to the direction, and the Board dismissed the complaint.

The complainant, a Health Care Manager in a correctional institution, filed a complaint seeking temporary pandemic pay.

The complaint was held in abeyance pending the outcome of a representative complaint, which was ultimately dismissed.

The Board directed the complainant to provide submissions on how they intended to proceed in light of that decision.

The complainant failed to respond to the direction.

Consequently, the Board dismissed the complaint.

The complainant, a Health Care Manager in a correctional institution, filed a complaint seeking temporary pandemic pay.

The complaint was held in abeyance pending the outcome of a representative complaint, which was ultimately dismissed because the Board lacked authority to create new terms of employment.

The Board directed the complainant to provide submissions on how they intended to proceed in light of that decision.

The complainant failed to respond to the direction.

Consequently, the Board dismissed the complaint without a hearing.

The complainant, a Health Care Manager in a correctional institution, filed a complaint claiming temporary pandemic pay.

The complaint was held in abeyance pending the outcome of a representative complaint, which was ultimately dismissed.

The Board directed the complainant to provide submissions on how she intended to proceed in light of the representative decision, warning that failure to respond could result in dismissal without a hearing.

The complainant failed to respond, and the complaint was dismissed.

The complainant, a Health Care Manager in a correctional institution, filed a complaint seeking temporary pandemic pay.

The complaint was held in abeyance pending the outcome of a representative complaint, which was ultimately dismissed because the Board lacked authority to introduce a term of employment not existing in the contract.

The Board directed the complainant to provide submissions on how she intended to proceed in light of that decision.

Having received no response, the Board dismissed the complaint.

The complainant, a Health Care Manager in a correctional institution, filed a complaint seeking temporary pandemic pay.

The complaint was held in abeyance pending the outcome of a representative complaint, which was ultimately dismissed because the Board lacked authority to introduce a term of employment not already existing in the contract.

The Board directed the complainant to provide submissions on how they intended to proceed in light of that decision.

The complainant failed to respond to the direction.

Consequently, the Board dismissed the complaint without a hearing.

The complainant, a Health Care Manager in a correctional institution, filed a complaint claiming temporary pandemic pay.

The complaint was held in abeyance pending the outcome of a representative complaint, which was ultimately dismissed.

The Board directed the complainant to provide submissions on how she intended to proceed in light of the representative decision.

The complainant failed to respond to the direction.

Consequently, the Board dismissed the complaint without a hearing.

The complainant, a Health Care Manager in a correctional institution, filed a complaint seeking temporary pandemic pay.

The complaint was held in abeyance pending a representative complaint, which was ultimately dismissed.

The Board directed the complainant to provide submissions on how she intended to proceed in light of the representative decision.

The complainant failed to respond to the direction.

Consequently, the Board dismissed the complaint without a hearing.

The complainant, a Health Care Manager, filed a complaint seeking temporary pandemic pay.

The complaint was held in abeyance pending the outcome of a representative complaint, which was ultimately dismissed because the Board lacked authority to create a new term of employment.

The Board directed the complainant to provide submissions on how she intended to proceed in light of that decision.

The complainant failed to respond to the direction.

Consequently, the Board dismissed the complaint without a hearing.

The complainant, a Health Care Manager in a correctional institution, filed a complaint seeking temporary pandemic pay.

The complaint was held in abeyance pending the outcome of a representative complaint, which was ultimately dismissed.

The Board directed the complainant to provide submissions on how she intended to proceed in light of the representative decision.

The complainant failed to respond to the Board's direction.

Consequently, the Board dismissed the complaint without a hearing.

The complainant, a Health Care Manager in a correctional institution, filed a complaint seeking temporary pandemic pay.

The complaint was held in abeyance pending the outcome of a representative complaint, which was ultimately dismissed because the Board lacked authority to introduce a term or condition of employment that did not already exist.

The Board directed the complainant to provide submissions on how she intended to proceed in light of that decision.

Having received no response, the Board dismissed the complaint.

The grievor failed to attend the scheduled hearing for his termination grievance.

The employer requested that the grievance be dismissed, while the union requested time to contact the grievor.

The arbitrator ordered the grievor to provide an explanation for his non-attendance and failure to provide notice by a specified date, failing which the grievance would be dismissed.

The union filed a grievance claiming call-back pay for an employee who received and reviewed work-related emails and texts outside of her regular working hours.

The employer argued that the communications merely informed the employee of a meeting and did not require work to be performed.

The arbitrator found that the nature and timing of the communications, including texts to the employee's personal phone, created a reasonable expectation that she review them prior to her next shift.

The grievance was allowed in part, and the employee was awarded four hours of call-back pay at time and one-half.

The complainant, a retired manager, filed a complaint alleging his performance rating was arbitrarily and discriminatorily lowered, denying him a pay increase.

The Employer raised preliminary objections to the Board's jurisdiction.

The Board dismissed the complaint without a hearing under Rule 11, finding it lacked jurisdiction on three grounds: the Regulation expressly excludes complaints about performance evaluations and resulting compensation; the complainant was retired and no longer a public servant when he filed the complaint; and the complaint was filed well beyond the mandatory 14-day time limit.

The complainant, a manager in Corrections, filed a complaint alleging that his 2019-2020 performance rating was changed with malice by the Employer, and sought compensation for lost wages.

The Employer argued that the Public Service Grievance Board lacked jurisdiction to hear the complaint.

The Board dismissed the complaint without a hearing, finding that sub-paragraphs 4 and 5 of section 4(2) of Ontario Regulation 378/07 expressly exclude matters relating to the evaluation of a public servant's performance and associated compensation from the Board's purview.

The complainant, a manager in Corrections, filed a complaint alleging her 2019-2020 performance rating was maliciously changed by the Employer, resulting in lost wages.

The Public Service Grievance Board dismissed the complaint without a hearing under Rule 11.

The Board held it lacked jurisdiction because O. Reg. 378/07 expressly precludes complaints about the evaluation of a public servant's performance or the resulting compensation.

The complainant, a manager in Corrections, filed a complaint seeking a higher performance rating and associated pay increase.

The Employer requested the complaint be dismissed without a hearing under Rule 11, arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction.

The Board found that paragraphs 4 and 5 of section 4(2) of Ontario Regulation 378/07 expressly exclude matters relating to performance evaluations and resulting compensation from its purview.

The complaint was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Ten managers filed complaints challenging the employer's decision to downgrade their performance ratings, which resulted in the denial of merit pay.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the Public Service Grievance Board lacked jurisdiction to hear the complaints under section 4(2) of Ontario Regulation 378/07, which excludes complaints about performance evaluations and resulting compensation.

The Board upheld the preliminary objection, finding that the complaints fundamentally concerned pay for performance and were excluded from its jurisdiction, even where the employer's actions were alleged to be arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith.

The complaints were dismissed, except for the portions alleging violations of the Human Rights Code, which the Board retained jurisdiction to consider.

The complainant, an Operational Manager, alleged she was improperly paid compared to male co-workers and sought a retroactive pay increase.

The employer raised preliminary objections that the complaint did not disclose a violation of a term of employment and was filed outside the statutory timelines.

The Public Service Grievance Board found that the complainant was seeking to create a new term of employment rather than enforce an existing one, and that the complaint was filed 18 months after her promotion, well beyond the 14-day statutory limit.

The complaint was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The complainant requested an adjournment of a scheduled mediation due to Covid-19 restrictions preventing an in-person process, and opposed proceeding by written submissions.

The employer agreed to adjourn the mediation but requested that its preliminary objection regarding the timeliness of the complaint be addressed via written submissions.

The Vice Chair adjourned the mediation and directed the parties to exchange written statements of fact regarding the timeliness issue to determine the appropriate next steps.