Reva Devins

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 union filed a grievance on behalf of an employee alleging that the employer unfairly and inconsistently charged for overtime hours, resulting in the employee not receiving an equalization payment.

The employer argued that the employee did not challenge the accuracy of the overtime charges within the 10-day period required by the Memorandum of Agreement.

The arbitrator found that the employee failed to dispute the records within the required timeframe, meaning the employer's records were deemed accurate.

The grievance 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.

The employer brought a motion to strike portions of the grievor's Will Say Statement in an arbitration concerning workplace accommodation and termination.

The employer argued the evidence was irrelevant, unparticularized, and included privileged mediation discussions.

The union also requested that the grievor remain anonymous due to the personal medical information involved.

The Grievance Settlement Board granted the anonymity request and allowed the employer's motion in part, striking evidence regarding other employees, pre-disability events, post-grievance Stage 2 meetings, and confidential mediation discussions, while permitting some evidence of alleged differential treatment.

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 Union filed grievances on behalf of two long-service employees who were denied approval for the Transition Exit Initiative (TEI) under Appendix 46 of the collective agreement.

The Employer denied the requests because the grievors' local office was under complement, meaning their departure would not result in cost savings or prevent layoffs.

The Union argued that the Employer's discretion was fettered by the seniority provisions in Appendix 46, requiring TEI requests to be considered on a bargaining-unit-wide basis.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievances, finding that the collective agreement granted the Employer broad discretion to approve TEI requests based on operational needs and whether the exit supported the transformation of the Ontario Public Service, without being strictly bound by seniority at the approval stage.

The Employer brought preliminary motions to bifurcate the proceedings and to strike certain particulars provided by the Union.

The grievances alleged a failure to accommodate the grievor's physical and psychological restrictions, leading to her refusal to return to an unsafe workplace and her subsequent termination for job abandonment.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the motion to bifurcate, finding that the issues were intertwined and bifurcation would not increase efficiency.

The Board allowed the motion to strike particulars regarding the OPSEU Pension Trust as being too remote, but permitted the remaining particulars, including those pre-dating May 1, 2013, as they were relevant to establishing a pattern of harassment and the ongoing accommodation process.

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.

The union alleged that the employer breached a Minute of Settlement by inadvertently processing a payment for retraining expenses as wages, resulting in improper deductions, and by delaying the provision of required information.

The union sought damages and an order for payment within 7 days.

The arbitrator ordered the employer to rectify the payment error within 14 days and provide a clarifying letter, but declined to award damages because the breaches were inadvertent.

In an expedited arbitration proceeding under the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act, the Grievance Settlement Board ordered the employer to pay $160.41, less statutory deductions, to each of the 48 named employees.

The union acknowledged that there were no further grievances of a like nature.

The union filed a grievance alleging that the employer improperly handled the grievor's sick leave by requesting medical documentation and accommodation information, setting short deadlines, and targeting him for differential treatment due to union activity.

The grievor sought reinstatement of 37 days of sick leave.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that Article 12.4 of the collective agreement entitled the employer to request medical documentation after five days of absence.

The Board also found no evidence that the employer attempted to intimidate the grievor, breached his confidentiality, or targeted him for differential treatment based on union activity.

The union filed a grievance after a security breach in an online portal allowed employees to access confidential incident reports, including two concerning the grievor.

The grievor alleged the reports mischaracterized his interactions with management, causing him stress and time off work.

The employer admitted the inadvertent breach but disputed the requested remedies.

The arbitrator allowed the grievance, ordering the employer to confirm the portal is secure, remove the disputed reports, and grant the grievor three extra days of vacation.

The union grieved the discharge of a warehouse worker who was terminated for allegedly concealing and stealing alcohol from the employer's warehouse.

The employer relied on circumstantial evidence, including video surveillance showing the grievor repeatedly going behind a wall near his workstation, examining product, and hiding cases of alcohol behind boxes of twine.

The grievor denied the allegations and offered alternative explanations for his conduct.

The arbitrator found the grievor's explanations lacked credibility and were inconsistent with the objective evidence.

Concluding that the preponderance of circumstantial evidence clearly established the grievor stole and concealed the product, the arbitrator upheld the discharge and dismissed the grievance.

The union filed grievances alleging the employer violated the collective agreement by scheduling a casual employee on medical accommodation for Saturday shifts instead of weekday shifts.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed this aspect of the grievance, finding that management retained the exclusive right to schedule casual employees based on operational needs, and the seniority provision did not grant shift preference rights.

On consent, the Board ordered that the grievor's medical file be kept at the Regional office and that she be paid 12.5 hours for weeks when she took an approved Saturday off.

The union filed grievances alleging that Court Reporters assigned to Small Claims Court perform the duties of a higher-rated Registrar classification and should be remunerated accordingly.

The employer argued the matter was a classification grievance outside the Board's jurisdiction.

The Vice-Chair agreed, finding the grievors were essentially challenging the classification of their duties, over which the Board has no jurisdiction.

The grievances were dismissed.