Reva Devins

The complainants challenged the Employer's refusal to grant their requests for enhanced severance benefits under the Voluntary Exit Program (VEP).

The Employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the complaints, arguing the Public Service Grievance Board lacked jurisdiction because the VEP did not form a term or condition of employment until an application was approved.

Relying on a previous decision involving the same program, the Board agreed that the complaints did not allege a violation of an existing term or condition of employment.

The preliminary motion was allowed and the complaints were dismissed.

The complainant challenged the employer's refusal to grant his request to exit the Ontario Public Service with enhanced severance benefits under the Voluntary Exit Program (VEP).

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction, arguing the VEP was not an existing term or condition of employment.

The Public Service Grievance Board agreed, finding that the VEP announcement was a pre-contractual representation and did not become a binding term of employment until an application was approved.

The Board concluded it lacked jurisdiction to review the fairness of the decision-making process or to create new terms of employment, and dismissed the complaint.

The Complainant, an Operational Manager at a correctional facility, was dismissed for cause following allegations of workplace harassment against a female colleague and the unauthorized expiry of a non-association alert between two high-risk inmates.

The Public Service Grievance Board found that the Complainant engaged in a pattern of harassing conduct that poisoned his colleague's work environment.

Furthermore, the Board concluded that his expiry of the non-association alert was reckless, unauthorized, and placed staff and inmates at risk.

Given the Complainant's lack of remorse and failure to take responsibility, the Board upheld the dismissal and dismissed the grievance.

The complainant was placed on an administrative suspension with pay pending an investigation into allegations of time theft.

The suspension letter advised he would not be eligible for overtime.

He filed a complaint regarding the loss of overtime pay.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the complaint on the basis that it was not filed within the mandatory 14-day timeline under O. Reg. 378/07.

The Board found that the complainant became aware of the circumstances giving rise to his complaint when he was initially suspended and told he was ineligible for overtime, not when the employer later confirmed he would not receive overtime pay.

As the notice was filed beyond the 14-day period, the Board lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the complaint.

The complainant filed a reprisal complaint alleging that the employer's written submissions in a previous proceeding before the Board were prejudicial and constituted an act of reprisal.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the complaint.

The Board held that the statements made by the employer in its legal pleadings were protected by absolute legal privilege and could not form the basis of a reprisal complaint.

The complaint was dismissed.

The complainant, a public servant, filed a complaint regarding the adequacy and fairness of her salary.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the complaint on the basis that the complainant failed to give notice of her intention to file the complaint to her Deputy Minister within 14 days of becoming aware of the issue, as required by s. 8(4) of Regulation 378/07 under the Public Service of Ontario Act.

The complainant conceded that her notice was filed outside the 14-day window following her last conversation with management about a potential salary increase.

The Board held that the time limits in the Regulation are mandatory and it has no jurisdiction to relieve against them.

The employer's motion was allowed and the complaint was dismissed.

The complainant filed a complaint challenging his disciplinary suspension.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the complaint on the basis that it was untimely.

The complainant acknowledged that he did not notify the Deputy Minister within the mandatory 14-day period set out in Regulation 378/07 under the Public Service of Ontario Act.

The Public Service Grievance Board held that the timelines are mandatory and it has no jurisdiction to extend them.

The employer's motion was granted and the complaint was dismissed.

In a discharge grievance, the parties addressed disclosure and production issues at the first hearing date.

The Vice Chair directed the Employer to contact the Greater Sudbury Police Service to collect and disclose all documents arguably relevant to the events leading to the Complainant's discharge.

The complainant sought an order directing the employer to pay a revised amount under their Minutes of Settlement to reflect a retroactive pay increase awarded to her former job class.

The employer argued the settlement amount was fixed and the agreement precluded further compensation.

The Public Service Grievance Board dismissed the motion, finding it lacked equitable jurisdiction to amend the clear and express terms of the negotiated settlement agreement.

The complainant was suspended with pay pending an investigation into allegations of workplace sexual harassment.

He filed a grievance arguing that under the Workplace Discrimination and Harassment Prevention (WDHP) Policy, the employer was required to disclose the specific allegations and provide all relevant documents at the exact time of his suspension.

The Grievance Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the WDHP Policy only requires sufficient information to allow effective participation in the process, which the complainant received prior to his interview with the investigator.

The Board held there is no freestanding right to immediate and full disclosure at the time of suspension under either the policy or the Public Service of Ontario Act.

The complainant challenged a 20-day disciplinary suspension.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the complaint because the complainant failed to give notice of his intention to complain within the mandatory 14-day period prescribed by section 8(4) of Regulation 378/07 under the Public Service of Ontario Act.

The Board held that compliance with the time limits is a strict precondition to its jurisdiction and it has no discretion to relieve against them.

The employer's motion was allowed and the complaint was dismissed.

The Complainant challenged her dismissal without cause, alleging bad faith, discrimination on the basis of disability, and reprisal for disclosure of wrongdoing under the Public Service of Ontario Act.

The Employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the complaint for failing to disclose a prima facie case.

The Complainant requested extensive document production to respond to the motion.

The Board ordered the Employer to produce documents relevant to whether a disclosure of wrongdoing occurred, as this was intertwined with the preliminary motion.

However, the Board denied production of documents relevant only to the merits of the discrimination claim at this stage.

The complainant grieved the employer's refusal to pay relocation expenses after he was granted a compassionate transfer to a new detention centre.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the complaint for failing to disclose a prima facie case.

The Public Service Grievance Board allowed the motion and dismissed the grievance, finding that the transfer was employee-requested and did not fall within the recruitment activity exception of the Relocation Expenses Directive.

As no term or condition of employment was violated, the Board had no jurisdiction to grant the requested remedy.