Marilyn A. Nairn

The Public Service Grievance Board issued a procedural direction after discovering that a previous decision had not been provided to one of the complainants, who was absent from the hearing due to illness.

The Board directed that the previous decision be forwarded to the absent complainant and any other complainants who had not received it.

The absent complainant was granted 30 days to indicate whether he sought a further opportunity to be heard, failing which his complaint would be dismissed.

The complainants, employed as Sergeants at the Ottawa Carlton Detention Centre, filed applications seeking standby and on-call pay for the period of January 2015 to January 2016.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the applications were untimely under Ontario Regulation 378/07.

The Public Service Grievance Board found that the complainants failed to give notice of their proposal to file a complaint to the Deputy Minister within the mandatory 14-day time limit after becoming aware of the circumstances giving rise to the complaint.

As the time limits are mandatory and the Board has no discretion to extend them, the applications were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The complainant sought a remedy for unpaid on-call pay during vacation periods, regularly scheduled days off (RDOs), and statutory holidays in 2015.

The employer argued the Board lacked jurisdiction to award a remedy for periods more than 14 days prior to the notice of proposal to file a complaint, and that RDOs and statutory holidays were not 'vacation periods'.

The Board held that its remedial jurisdiction was strictly limited to the 14 days prior to the notice.

However, the Board found that RDOs and statutory holidays abutting vacation days should be treated as part of the vacation period for the purpose of on-call pay.

The employer was ordered to pay $324.00 for 324 hours of on-call time.

The complainants, a group of Operational Managers, filed a grievance claiming pay and damages for a period of standby that was cancelled by the employer.

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

The Public Service Grievance Board found that the notice of proposal to file the complaint and the complaint itself were filed outside the mandatory 14-day time limits set out in sections 8 and 10 of Ontario Regulation 378/07.

As the Board has no discretion to relieve against these mandatory time limits, the complaint was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

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, 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 between January 2015 and January 2016.

The Public Service Grievance Board noted that the complainant did not send a notice of proposal to file a complaint until May 2016, well beyond the mandatory 14-day time limit under O. Reg. 378/07.

After the complainant failed to respond to the Board's request for submissions on the timeliness issue, the Board dismissed the complaint without a hearing for lack of jurisdiction.

The complainant 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 because the complainant failed to provide a notice of proposal to file a complaint within the mandatory 14-day time limit prescribed by O. Reg. 378/07.

The conduct complained of ended in January 2016, but the notice was not sent until April 2016.

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 between January 2015 and January 2016.

The Public Service Grievance Board dismissed the complaint without a hearing because the complainant failed to provide a Notice of proposal to file a complaint within the mandatory 14-day time limit prescribed by O. Reg. 378/07.

The Board found it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the untimely complaint.

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 between January 2015 and January 2016.

The Public Service Grievance Board dismissed the complaint without a hearing because the complainant failed to provide a notice of proposal to file a complaint within the mandatory 14-day time limit prescribed by O. Reg. 378/07.

The conduct complained of ended in January 2016, but the notice was not sent until April 2016.

The complainant filed a grievance alleging the employer failed to properly compensate her for standby and on-call pay.

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

As the Board has no discretion to relieve against this time limit, the complaint was dismissed without a hearing.

The complainant, a Sergeant at the Ottawa Carlton Detention Centre, filed a complaint alleging the employer failed to properly compensate her for standby and on-call pay between January 2015 and January 2016.

The Public Service Grievance Board dismissed the complaint without a hearing because the complainant failed to provide a Notice of proposal to file a complaint within the mandatory 14-day time limit prescribed by O. Reg. 378/07.

The Board found it had no jurisdiction to entertain the untimely complaint.

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

The employer argued the complaint was untimely.

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 under O. Reg. 378/07.

As the Board has no discretion to relieve against this mandatory time limit, it lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter.

The complaint was dismissed without a hearing.

The complainant filed an application alleging he was improperly terminated due to a disability.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the Board lacked jurisdiction because the complainant was employed on a fixed-term contract on an irregular or on-call basis.

The Board reviewed the employment records and schedules, confirming the complainant's status as an irregular, fixed-term employee.

Under subsection 5(2)5 of O. Reg. 378/07, such employees are not eligible to file a complaint.

Consequently, the Board found it had no jurisdiction and dismissed the application.

In a job competition grievance, the Association sought to introduce an email provided by the employer during the grievance procedure, and objected to the employer introducing performance documents of the incumbent that were not before the selection committee.

The Grievance Settlement Board ruled that the email was inadmissible as it was subject to grievance procedure privilege, having been disclosed to facilitate settlement discussions.

The Board further ruled that the incumbent's performance documents were relevant to the comparative assessment of candidates, but could not be admitted without proper authentication through a witness.

The complainant, an Operational Manager who was later promoted to Deputy Superintendent, filed a grievance seeking to have a 5% management salary increase applied to his Deputy Superintendent rate rather than his previous classification rate.

He argued he was being paid less than other Deputy Superintendents performing the same work.

The Public Service Grievance Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the 5% increase was a one-time adjustment effective April 1, 2015, at which time the complainant was still in his previous classification.

The Board held it lacked jurisdiction to grant salary parity based on fairness, as there was no breach of an existing term or condition of employment.

The complainant, a Sergeant at a correctional centre, filed a grievance alleging he was placed 'on call' without compensation from January 2015 to January 2016 due to delayed vacation approvals and requirements to provide contact information during a labour dispute.

The Public Service Grievance Board found that the employer's delay in approving vacations was a reasonable exercise of management discretion and did not place the complainant on call for the entire year.

However, the Board held that the employer's explicit requirement for the complainant to provide a contact number and remain available for recall during his approved vacation periods constituted being 'on call' under the Compensation Directive.

The grievance was allowed in part, and the complainant was awarded on-call pay for hours outside his regularly scheduled work periods during approved vacations, less any stand-by pay already received.

The parties reached a settlement regarding the grievor's return to work but could not agree on the location.

Pursuant to Article 22.16 of the collective agreement, the parties requested the arbitrator to determine the appropriate location.

The arbitrator found that returning to the previous location was not in the interests of either party and directed the grievor to return to work at the Toronto East Detention Centre.

The complainant filed an application with the Public Service Grievance Board.

The employer advised it had no position to mediate and requested the matter proceed to arbitration.

The Vice-Chair directed the matter be set down for arbitration, noting it would be an inefficient use of resources to schedule mediation.

The Vice-Chair also issued interim orders directing the complainant to provide any remaining particulars and documentary material, and directing the employer to provide its documentary material and response to the application.

The complainants, Operational Managers who had been on acting assignments as Deputy Superintendents, filed a complaint seeking compensation for on-call duties performed during their assignments.

The employer raised preliminary objections regarding timeliness and jurisdiction.

The Public Service Grievance Board found that the notice of proposal to file a complaint was filed well beyond the mandatory 14-day time limit set out in Regulation 378/07, as the complainants were aware of the working conditions at the outset of their assignments.

The Board dismissed the complaint as untimely, noting that even if timely, the complainants had effectively waived their right to claim compensation by accepting the terms without challenge during the assignment.

The complainant filed a grievance against the employer.

Following multiple interim decisions directing the complainant to provide appropriate medical documentation to support a request for hearing accommodation, the complainant failed to comply by the deadline.

Instead, the complainant sent an email withdrawing the complaint.

The Public Service Grievance Board accepted the withdrawal and terminated the proceedings.