Marilyn Nairn

The complainant, a Health Care Manager at a correctional facility, filed a grievance claiming entitlement to temporary pandemic pay.

The Province had announced pandemic pay for eligible frontline workers, but explicitly excluded management personnel under O. Reg. 241/20.

The employer had also provided a separate pandemic pay measure for Sergeants and Staff Sergeants, which did not extend to Health Care Managers.

The Public Service Grievance Board dismissed the complaint, finding it had no jurisdiction to create a new term or condition of employment, as the complainant was a manager and thus excluded from the pandemic pay regulation and the specific policy for Sergeants.

The complainant filed a grievance alleging that a competition for temporary manager positions was fundamentally flawed and that she had been subjected to sexual harassment.

The sexual harassment allegation was conceded as untimely.

Relying on an external investigation report, the Board found several flaws in the competition process, including inconsistent interview panels, unposted requirements, and disproportionate weight placed on interview performance.

However, because the complainant acknowledged she performed poorly in the interview relative to others and would not have been the successful candidate regardless, the Board declined to order the competition re-run and terminated the proceedings.

The union filed grievances on behalf of an operations clerk seeking a change in work hours to accommodate child care, relying on a specific provision of the collective agreement.

The family status claim was later abandoned, and the union sought only a declaration regarding which hours of work provision applied.

The employer raised preliminary objections, arguing there was no prima facie case and the grievances were moot.

The arbitrator upheld both objections, finding that even if the union's facts were true, the grievor's schedule complied with both potential provisions, meaning no violation could be established.

Furthermore, the arbitrator found the issue moot as the real issue of assigning hours within a range was no longer addressed by the grievances.

The grievances were dismissed.

A group of Deputy Superintendents filed a complaint alleging unfair compensation regarding standby and on-call duties under the Management Compensation Plan.

The matter was adjourned sine die in 2017.

In 2019, the Board inquired about the status of the complaint, warning that failure to respond by a specified deadline would result in the complaint being deemed abandoned.

After receiving no indication from any named complainant that they intended to pursue the matter, the Board found the complaint abandoned and dismissed it.

The complainant, a Sergeant, filed a complaint with the Public Service Grievance Board alleging excessive discipline.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the complaint was filed prematurely under O. Reg. 378/07.

The Board found that the complaint was filed three days before the expiry of the mandatory 30-day dispute resolution period.

As the statutory timelines are mandatory and the Board has no discretion to relieve against them, the Board concluded it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the complaint.

The Employer raised a preliminary objection that the complainant's grievance regarding workplace discipline was filed out of time under Regulation 378/07 of the Public Service of Ontario Act, 2006.

The Board directed the complainant to respond, but the complainant requested an adjournment because his representative was unavailable for medical reasons.

The Board granted the adjournment, noting it had inadvertently failed to copy the complainant on its earlier direction, and ordered the complainant to file a written response to the timeliness objection by a specified date.

In a grievance concerning a request for disability accommodation, the Arbitrator issued an interim decision directing the Union to provide full written particulars of the grievor's asserted disability.

The Union was also directed to produce all relevant documentation, including medical records detailing any restrictions or limitations on the grievor's ability to return to work.

The Employer was directed to respond in writing setting out its position prior to the continuation of the hearing.

The complainant failed to attend a scheduled mediation before the Public Service Grievance Board.

The employer attended and made submissions.

The Vice-Chair directed that the matter be rescheduled for med/arb and ordered the complainant to provide full written particulars of his complaints at least 60 days prior to the next scheduled date.

The employer reserved the right to seek dismissal if the complainant fails to attend the rescheduled date.

A group of Sergeants at a correctional centre filed a grievance seeking enhanced overtime pay for time spent working during a labour disruption.

The employer had paid enhanced overtime for certain periods but required a 40-hour straight-time threshold to be met each week and ceased enhanced overtime payments on the second weekend, claiming normal operations had resumed.

The Public Service Grievance Board found that the employer correctly applied the 40-hour threshold for regular scheduled hours.

However, the Board held that the Sergeants who remained at the facility over the second weekend to perform clean-up and preparation work were still engaged in labour disruption related work and were therefore entitled to the enhanced overtime rate until the end of the approved period.

The employer requested disclosure of Crown Brief records in a related criminal matter for use in a grievance arbitration.

On consent of the parties, the Public Service Grievance Board ordered the Crown to disclose specific statements from the Crown Brief to the employer's counsel, subject to the Wagg screening process.

The Board further ordered that the records be shared with the employee's counsel and sealed from the public record pursuant to the Public Service of Ontario Act, 2006 and the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to have the discipline grievances of three correctional officers heard together.

The grievances all stemmed from the same alleged use-of-force incident involving an inmate and the ensuing investigation.

The union opposed the motion, arguing that the legal issues were specific to each grievor and that hearing them together would cause delay and prejudice.

The Grievance Settlement Board granted the motion, finding that hearing the matters together would be more efficient given the significant overlap in evidence and would avoid the possibility of conflicting findings of fact.

The employer sought to consolidate the grievor's termination grievance with the discipline grievances of two other employees arising from the same incident.

The employer sought to give third party notice of the consolidation motion to the other two employees.

The union opposed the notice, arguing it had carriage of all grievances and there was no conflict of interest.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that the other employees had no third party interest in the outcome of the grievor's grievances, as their collective agreement benefits would not be affected.

The Board found third party notice was not warranted.

The WSIB terminated the employment of several permanently disabled employees who were in receipt of WSIB loss of earnings benefits.

The union filed a grievance alleging unjust treatment due to the terminations and seeking severance pay and benefits.

Two years later, prior to mediation, the union clarified it was seeking reinstatement to employee status to maintain benefits, analogous to a prior decision involving LTD benefits.

The WSIB raised a preliminary objection, arguing this impermissibly expanded the scope of the grievance which it believed was limited to severance pay.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the objection, finding that the grievance expressly challenged the terminations and sought benefits, which inherently implies a claim for continued employee status.

The union requested permission for the grievor to record the arbitration proceedings as a medical accommodation for depression, which allegedly caused issues with concentration and focus.

The employer objected.

The Grievance Settlement Board denied the request, finding that the medical note did not establish that the grievor was unable to participate in the hearing or that recording was the appropriate accommodation, noting that other measures such as additional breaks or note-taking could address the concentration issues without raising the concerns associated with recording proceedings.

The union filed a grievance claiming that the employer was required to provide 120 hours' notice when asking employees to work at a different office location to cover staff shortages, failing which the first shift must be paid at overtime rates.

The union relied on Article UN5.1 of the collective agreement regarding changes to the posted shift schedule.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that Article UN5.1 refers to hours of work (time) and not the location of work, and therefore has no application to a change of work location.

The union grieved the awarding of six Nurse 2 positions and sought production of the competition file.

The employer agreed to provide the file but redacted the names of the candidates, asserting a privacy interest.

The arbitrator ordered the employer to produce the complete file, finding no expectation of privacy in an open competitive process that is subject to challenge through the grievance procedure, and noting the union's obligation to advise successful applicants whose interests might be affected.

The union filed grievances regarding a pay issue at Maplehurst Correctional Complex during the SARS outbreak, seeking compensation for all hours worked.

The parties referred the grievances to mediation/arbitration.

The arbitrator found that the grievors had been compensated in accordance with the Collective Agreement and resolved the grievances without reasons, as requested by the parties.

The employer requested particulars regarding multiple grievances filed by the union concerning the offering of summer seasonal work contracts in Algonquin Park for 2003.

The Grievance Settlement Board granted the request and ordered the union to provide full particulars, including the specific collective agreement provisions allegedly violated, the remedies sought, and details regarding past practice and seniority rights.

The Grievance Settlement Board heard submissions from the parties regarding a grievance filed by the union.

Pursuant to Article 22.16 of the Collective Agreement, the Vice-Chair dismissed the grievance.

The Grievance Settlement Board heard submissions from the parties regarding a grievance filed by the Ontario Public Service Employees Union against the Crown in Right of Ontario.

Pursuant to Article 22.16 of the Collective Agreement, the Vice-Chair dismissed the grievance.