Marilyn A. Nairn

The complainants filed grievances challenging the employer's alteration of their performance ratings and associated compensation.

The employer raised a preliminary objection asserting that the Public Service Grievance Board lacks jurisdiction to entertain the complaints pursuant to section 4(2) of Ontario Regulation 378/07.

Due to COVID-19 restrictions preventing in-person hearings, the Board issued an interim decision establishing a timetable for the parties to file written submissions regarding the jurisdictional objection.

The union filed a grievance claiming 15 minutes of overtime premium pay for a missed lunch break.

The employer had denied the overtime, arguing that the grievor had not worked the threshold 7.25 hours because time spent travelling during regular working hours did not constitute work.

The arbitrator allowed the grievance, finding that authorized travel time during regular working hours is compensable work time, and therefore the grievor had worked in excess of 7.25 hours and was entitled to the overtime premium for the 15 minutes worked during the lunch break.

The complainant challenged a letter of discipline for insubordination.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the complaint as moot, noting that the complainant had been on long-term disability and the letter of discipline had been removed from his personnel file after three years.

The Board found the complaint was moot because the remedy sought had been achieved and the letter no longer had any impact on the complainant's employment.

The complaint was dismissed.

The complainant, a civilian manager with the OPP, sought interim relief pending the arbitration of his complaint regarding a paid suspension and alleged workplace misconduct by his superiors.

He requested reimbursement for travel expenses related to a secondment, the suspension of the individuals he accused of misconduct, and payment of his legal fees.

The Public Service Grievance Board denied the request, finding that the complainant failed to establish that the extraordinary remedy of interim relief was warranted.

The Board noted that its remedial powers would be sufficient to fashion an appropriate remedy following a full hearing on the merits if the complaint succeeds.

The complainant requested an adjournment of a scheduled hearing date due to medical reasons.

The Employer opposed the request, arguing the medical evidence was insufficient.

The Board found the medical notes provided sufficient to warrant adjourning the oral hearing.

However, the Board noted the complainant had been able to submit written documents and participate in a limited fashion.

The Board directed the complainant to respond to specific factual assertions made by the Employer regarding the timeliness of two of his complaints, or provide more compelling medical evidence explaining his inability to do so.

The Employer raised a preliminary objection regarding a group complaint filed before the Public Service Grievance Board, arguing that three of the four named complainants had not filed a required notice of proposal under section 8 of O. Reg. 378/07.

The Board directed the individuals to provide evidence of their notices.

After receiving no valid notices of proposal from the three individuals, the Board found that filing a notice is an essential pre-condition for jurisdiction.

Consequently, the Board removed the three individuals as named parties to the complaint, leaving only the original complainant.

The complainant filed a complaint challenging a 15-day suspension.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the complaint was untimely.

The Board found that the complaint was filed two days before the expiration of the mandatory 30-day dispute resolution period under section 9 of Ontario Regulation 378/07.

As compliance with the time limits is mandatory, the Board concluded it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and dismissed it.

The complainant requested an adjournment of a scheduled hearing for three disciplinary complaints, asserting an inability to attend for medical reasons.

The employer opposed the request, noting that four prior hearing dates had already been adjourned and the complaints were over four years old.

The Board directed the complainant to provide sufficient and reliable medical evidence from a treating health care professional to support the adjournment request by a specified date, failing which the hearing would proceed as scheduled.

The employer raised a preliminary objection regarding the timeliness of the complaint.

The matter was scheduled for an oral hearing, but the complainant requested a last-minute adjournment due to a scheduling mistake.

The employer agreed to the adjournment but requested the hearing proceed in writing.

The Board found the complainant's explanation fell short but granted the adjournment, directing the complainant to provide written submissions responding to the employer's preliminary objection.

The complainant, a Sergeant with 26 years of service, was terminated for fabricating and submitting false receipts for relocation expenses.

The complainant admitted to creating some receipts and his spouse created others, which included forged signatures and appropriated business names.

The complainant claimed he was following advice to create a 'paper trail' for cash payments to individuals who were not registered businesses.

The Public Service Grievance Board found the complainant's actions were deliberate, deceitful, and motivated by a sense of entitlement to maximum benefits rather than actual expenses incurred.

Given the complainant's failure to take responsibility and his lack of candour during the investigation and hearing, the Board concluded the employment relationship was irreparably severed and upheld the termination.

The union grieved the termination of a correctional officer who left a cell door unlocked, allowing two inmates unsupervised access to a dayroom.

The grievor was subject to a last chance agreement that mandated termination for failing to observe unlocked inmates or carry out duties diligently.

The arbitrator found that the grievor failed to conduct a systematic check of the cell doors and did not ask his co-workers to complete the lock-up.

As the grievor's conduct violated the last chance agreement, the arbitrator had no jurisdiction to modify the penalty of dismissal.

The complainant, a Sergeant, filed a grievance seeking a 6.4% retroactive wage increase that was provided to managers who were in their positions as of April 1, 2016.

The complainant commenced employment after this date.

The employer raised preliminary objections regarding the timeliness of the complaint and the inclusion of a second employee who had not filed a separate complaint.

The Public Service Grievance Board found that the second employee was not properly a complainant before the Board.

On the merits, the Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the term of employment providing the wage increase clearly applied only to those employed as of April 1, 2016, and the Board had no authority to create a new term of employment or award a wage increase not provided for in the existing terms.

The Association filed a job competition grievance on behalf of the complainant, a Financial Analyst, alleging that the employer violated the collective agreement by awarding a permanent position to a non-bargaining unit applicant.

The collective agreement required preference to be given to the bargaining unit applicant where qualifications and ability were relatively equal.

The arbitrator found that while both candidates had excellent technical skills, the successful applicant possessed significantly better interpersonal, communication, and strategic skills, which were essential requirements of the position.

The grievance was dismissed.

The complainant, a Youth Services Manager with permanent medical restrictions, alleged the employer failed to accommodate him when it removed him from the assignment roster ahead of an anticipated strike.

The employer required managers to remain on-site 24/7 during the strike, which conflicted with the complainant's restriction requiring 8-10 hours away from the facility nightly.

The Board found the employer's decision reasonable, as it could not ensure safe access across a picket line and could not ignore the medical restrictions or its safety obligations.

The application was dismissed.

The complainant failed to attend the scheduled hearing due to illness.

The Board heard three related applications on the same day and dismissed them.

The Board directed the complainant to advise within 30 days if he sought a further opportunity to be heard, failing which his application would be dismissed.

The complainant did not respond to the direction.

The application was dismissed.

The complainant, a Sergeant at the Ottawa Carlton Detention Centre, filed a complaint seeking standby and on-call pay for the period of January 1, 2015, to January 21, 2016.

The Board found that the complainant failed to provide notice of his proposal to file a complaint within the mandatory 14-day time limit set out in O. Reg. 378/07 under the Public Service of Ontario Act, 2006.

As the Board has no discretion to relieve against this time limit, the application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction without a hearing.

The complainant, a Sergeant at the Ottawa Carlton Detention Centre, filed a complaint alleging the employer failed to properly compensate him for standby and on-call pay.

The Public Service Grievance Board reviewed the application and found that the complainant failed to provide notice of his proposal to file a complaint within the mandatory 14-day time limit set out in O. Reg. 378/07.

As the Board has no discretion to relieve against this time limit, it concluded it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the application and dismissed the complaint.

The complainant, a Sergeant at the Ottawa Carlton Detention Centre, filed a complaint seeking standby and on-call pay for the period of January 1, 2015, to January 21, 2016.

The Public Service Grievance Board found that the complainant failed to provide a Notice of proposal to file a complaint within the mandatory 14-day time limit set out in O. Reg. 378/07.

As the time limit is mandatory and the Board has no discretion to relieve against it, the Board concluded it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the application without a hearing.

The complainant, a Sergeant at the Ottawa Carlton Detention Centre, filed a complaint alleging the employer failed to properly compensate him for standby and on-call pay.

The Public Service Grievance Board dismissed the complaint without a hearing, finding that the complainant failed to give notice of his proposal to file a complaint within the mandatory 14-day time limit prescribed by O. Reg. 378/07 under the Public Service of Ontario Act, 2006.

As the time limit is mandatory and the Board has no discretion to relieve against it, the Board lacked jurisdiction to entertain the application.

The complainant, a Sergeant at the Ottawa Carlton Detention Centre, filed a complaint regarding unpaid standby and on-call compensation for the period of January 1, 2015, to January 21, 2016.

The Public Service Grievance Board reviewed the application and found that the complainant failed to provide the required notice of proposal to file a complaint within the mandatory 14-day time limit set out in Ontario Regulation 378/07.

The Board determined it had no jurisdiction to relieve against the strict time limit and dismissed the application without a hearing.