N. Agarwal

The grievor was released from his position as a Treasury Policy Advisor due to a ministry reorganization and downsizing, but was subsequently redeployed to another ministry at the same classification and salary.

He filed a grievance alleging his release was a disguised dismissal.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the grievance, arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction to review a release under s. 22(4) of the Public Service Act and that the matter was moot due to the redeployment.

The Board held that while it has jurisdiction to review a release if bad faith is alleged, the grievor failed to provide any evidence of bad faith.

The Board concluded it had no grounds to review the employer's business decision and dismissed the grievance.

The Grievor, a Provincial Medical Toxicologist, was declared surplus and her position abolished during a major downsizing initiative by the Ministry of Labour.

She grieved the termination, alleging it was done in bad faith and was a disguised dismissal based on discrimination regarding her previous leaves of absence.

The Public Service Grievance Board found that the Employer made a legitimate business decision to eliminate the position under the Expenditure Control Program.

The Board concluded the Grievor failed to satisfy the onus of proving bad faith, discrimination, or unfairness in the decision-making process, and dismissed the grievance.

The grievor, a medical consultant, was released from her employment with the Ministry of Labour due to budget cuts under the Expenditure Control Plan.

The employer used an assessment process to determine which of the five medical consultants would be retained.

The grievor alleged that the assessment was unfair and inaccurate, leading to her wrongful release.

The Public Service Grievance Board found that the assessment process was fundamentally flawed and lacked procedural fairness, as it was conducted hastily, contained significant errors, and provided no opportunity for the incumbents to be interviewed or review their assessments.

The grievance was granted, and the grievor was awarded compensation equal to seven months of notice.

The grievors, former employees of the Liquor Control Board of Ontario (LCBO), filed grievances alleging wrongful dismissal.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the Public Service Grievance Board lacked jurisdiction because the grievors were hired under the Liquor Control Act and were 'crown employees' rather than 'public servants' under the Public Service Act.

The Board agreed, finding that its jurisdiction under Regulation 977 is limited to persons employed in the public service under the jurisdiction of a Deputy Minister.

As the LCBO does not appoint under the Public Service Act, the Board dismissed the grievances for lack of jurisdiction.

Following an arbitration award that reinstated the grievor with full compensation, the parties disagreed on whether compensation included legal costs.

The grievor sought legal costs, citing a previous exceptional case.

The Public Service Grievance Board denied the request, reaffirming its long-standing policy not to award legal costs in grievance arbitrations, finding no unique circumstances to justify an exception.

The Grievor was released from his employment on the last day of his one-year probationary period.

He filed grievances alleging wrongful dismissal and improper working conditions.

The Employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the grievances for lack of jurisdiction, arguing that under section 22(5) of the Public Service Act, a probationary employee released within the first year has no right to a hearing on the merits.

The Grievor argued he had completed his probationary period by working on the final day.

The Public Service Grievance Board held that releasing the employee on the 365th day satisfied the statutory requirement for termination within the first year.

The Board concluded it lacked jurisdiction to hear the dismissal grievance or the working conditions grievance, and dismissed both.

The grievor, a former management employee of the Workers' Compensation Board, filed a grievance alleging wrongful dismissal.

The employer raised a preliminary objection, arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction because the grievor was not a public servant under the Public Service Act.

The Public Service Grievance Board agreed, finding that the grievor was hired by the Chair of the Workers' Compensation Board, a Schedule III Crown Agency, and was not employed under the jurisdiction of a Deputy Minister as required by section 36(1) of Regulation 977.

The grievance was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.