Thomas Kuttner, KC

The Employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the Complainant's grievance, arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction because the complaint was filed prematurely during the mandatory dispute resolution period.

The Employer also argued that ex parte communications between the Board's Registrar and the Complainant regarding filing timelines raised a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Board dismissed the motion, finding that the premature applications were effectively withdrawn and the final application was filed within the correct statutory window.

The Board further held that the Registrar's communications provided permissible legal information rather than legal advice, and did not prejudice the Employer or raise an apprehension of bias.

The complainant filed a grievance alleging the employer unfairly declared her position abandoned under section 42 of the Public Service of Ontario Act, 2006.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the complainant failed to file her Notice of Proposal within the mandatory 14-day time limit under O Reg 378/07.

The complainant argued the employer waived this objection by participating in mediation.

The Board held that the statutory time limits are substantive and cannot be waived.

Because the notice was filed 15 days after the complainant became aware of the decision, the Board lacked jurisdiction to hear the complaint on its merits.

The complaint was dismissed.

The complainant filed a grievance alleging he was suspended for three days without just cause for abuse of sick leave.

A hearing on the merits was scheduled, but the complainant failed to attend.

When directed to provide reasons, the complainant explained he had forgotten about the hearing and accepted an overtime shift.

The Employer sought dismissal of the complaint.

The Public Service Grievance Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the complainant's failure to attend because he simply forgot and took a shift indicated a lack of interest in having the complaint adjudicated and a lack of respect for the Board's processes.

The complainant filed a grievance alleging he was disciplined without just cause when suspended for three days for abuse of sick leave.

A mediation/arbitration hearing was scheduled, but the complainant failed to appear without notice.

The Public Service Grievance Board adjourned the proceedings and directed the complainant to provide a written explanation for his failure to appear, failing which the complaint would be dismissed.

The complainant, a Sergeant at a correctional complex, filed a complaint alleging workplace harassment and unfair denial of overtime by the Superintendent.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the complaint was not filed in accordance with the mandatory timelines and procedures under O Reg 378/07.

The Board found that the complainant failed to send his Notice of Proposal to File a Complaint to the correct Deputy Minister and failed to do so within the required 14-day period.

Consequently, the Board held it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and dismissed it.

The complainants, managerial employees, sought compensation for mandatory rapid antigen testing (RAT) performed outside working hours, relying on a prior grievance settlement for unionized staff.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the complaints were filed outside the mandatory 14-day time limit under O. Reg. 378/07.

The Board agreed, finding that the time limit began when the RAT initiative was implemented in February 2022, not when the complainants learned of the union settlement in March 2023.

As the Board lacks jurisdiction to extend the mandatory time limit, the complaints were dismissed.

The complainant filed a complaint alleging unfair allocation of overtime.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the complaint was untimely because the Notice of Proposal was filed one day after the mandatory 14-day time limit under O. Reg. 378/07.

The complainant failed to file a reply to the preliminary objection.

The Public Service Grievance Board held that the 14-day time limit is mandatory and it lacks discretion to extend it.

The complaint was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.