Employment and Labour Law

The complainant, whose position was declared surplus, elected to exit the workplace with salary continuance until his retirement date.

Later that year, the employer announced retroactive pay improvements for managers.

The complainant sought these improvements, arguing he was still an employee during his salary continuance.

The Public Service Grievance Board dismissed the complaint, finding that under the applicable pay policies, the complainant was no longer in a non-bargaining unit position and was considered to be on a leave of absence pending termination, making him ineligible.

Furthermore, the Board held that the exit agreement and release signed by the complainant constituted a complete bar to his claim, and there was no evidence of misrepresentation or duress to invalidate the release.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the employee's grievance regarding tuition assistance due to delay and failure to provide full particulars.

The Board found that the delay in scheduling the hearing was not solely attributable to the employee, as some delay was due to medical leave and administrative issues.

While the Board declined to dismiss the grievance for failure to provide particulars, it directed the employee to provide specific details regarding the alleged breaches of the Public Service Act and the basis for his complaint before the employer would be required to respond to his disclosure requests.

The grievors requested that the Public Service Grievance Board reconsider its earlier decision dismissing their complaints regarding pay for performance.

The employer objected, arguing the Board was functus officio and lacked statutory authority to reconsider its decisions.

The Board agreed with the employer, finding that as a statutory tribunal, it does not possess inherent powers to reconsider a final decision in the absence of an express legislative mandate.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

The grievor challenged an unsuccessful job competition and requested disclosure of all candidates' test results and answers.

The Board ordered the grievor to provide written particulars of his grievance before ruling on the disclosure request.

After the grievor failed to provide particulars despite multiple extensions and notices, the employer brought a motion to dismiss the grievance.

The Board granted the motion, holding that while unrepresented grievors should not face overly onerous procedural burdens, they must still provide basic particulars to establish the relevancy of requested documents.

The employer requested particulars regarding a grievance alleging failure to properly implement the pay for performance policy and failure to follow compensation policies for acting assignments.

The Public Service Grievance Board adjourned the hearing on consent and deferred the pay for performance issue pending the reconsideration of a related decision.

The Board ordered the grievor to provide specific particulars regarding the policy failure issue, including the material facts, dates, and representatives involved, by June 22, 2004.

The grievor, a chaplain, was suspended for insubordination after a dispute over the use of a worship centre.

She claimed she was constructively dismissed and refused to return to work, alleging a poisoned work environment.

The employer continued to pay her for several months, repeatedly requesting that she return to work or request a leave of absence.

When she failed to do so, the employer declared she had abandoned her position under section 20 of the Public Service Act.

The Public Service Grievance Board allowed the employer's preliminary motion and dismissed the grievance, finding the grievor was absent without official leave for more than two weeks without reasonable justification.

The grievor, a sergeant with the Ontario Governments Protective Service, filed a working conditions grievance after the employer reduced her scheduled rest days from four to one per 56-day rotation.

She subsequently amended her grievance to allege harassment and reprisal by her supervisors for filing the initial complaint.

The Public Service Grievance Board found that while the employer had the management right to alter the work schedule to provide an unencumbered lunch break, it failed to provide clear notice of this change until December 14, 1998, entitling the grievor to compensation for lost lieu days up to that date.

Furthermore, the Board upheld the harassment grievance, finding that the employer's actions, including threats of privatization and an unjustified negative performance evaluation, constituted a pattern of reprisal intended to dissuade the grievor from exercising her rights.

The Board ordered the employer to cease and desist all harassment and awarded the grievor two-thirds of her costs on a solicitor-client basis due to exceptional circumstances.

The grievor, a non-engineer who had historically been paid the same salary as professional engineers, filed a grievance after a new collective agreement for engineers resulted in a significant pay disparity.

The employer brought preliminary motions to dismiss the grievance for lack of jurisdiction and untimeliness.

The Board dismissed the employer's motions, finding that it had jurisdiction to hear allegations of a breach of a working condition or term of employment.

The Board also extended the time limits for filing the grievance, noting the delay was bona fide, the grievance had significant ongoing monetary implications, and the employer was not prejudiced.

The grievors, Operational Managers at a detention centre, grieved that they should receive shift premiums in addition to overtime pay, similar to bargaining unit members under their collective agreement.

The employer brought a motion to dismiss.

The Public Service Grievance Board dismissed the grievance, holding that management employees have no legal entitlement to benefits based on the terms of a bargaining unit's collective agreement.

The Board found no evidence of bad faith, arbitrariness, or discrimination, and noted that the employer no longer maintained a compression policy to ensure a pay gap between management and bargaining unit employees.

The grievor filed a grievance seeking reimbursement for moving expenses incurred after he relocated from Kingston to Ottawa, alleging his 1995 assignment to Kingston should have been treated as temporary.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the grievance as untimely, noting it was filed two and a half years after the employer denied his request.

The Public Service Grievance Board found the delay significant and the grievor's explanation of fearing reprisal unjustified.

The Board declined to exercise its discretion to extend the time limits and dismissed the grievance as untimely.

The grievors, Operational Managers, filed grievances claiming inadequate compensation for statutory holidays, seeking 12 hours of lieu time retroactively to match a benefit awarded to bargaining unit members.

The employer objected that the grievances were untimely and without merit.

The Public Service Grievance Board dismissed the grievances, finding that a four-year delay in filing was unjustified.

Furthermore, the Board held that management employees have no legal entitlement to benefits solely because they were granted to bargaining unit members under a collective agreement.

The grievors, former Area Managers, alleged they were constructively dismissed when their positions were eliminated and replaced by Area Vice President positions, for which they unsuccessfully competed.

The Employer raised a preliminary objection that the Board lacked jurisdiction.

The Board upheld the objection and dismissed the grievances, finding that the grievors failed to file within the 14-day statutory time limit and that the Board has no jurisdiction under the Public Service Act to adjudicate claims of constructive dismissal for Schedule I employees who were surplused rather than discharged for cause.

The grievor, a former Employment Equity Manager, filed four grievances against the Ministry of Transportation.

She alleged that her transfer to a Project Manager position was arbitrary, discriminatory, and the culmination of a series of acts of sexual discrimination and harassment.

She also grieved the employer's handling of a harassment complaint made against her by a subordinate, and the employer's decision not to grant her an interview for a subsequent Employment Equity Manager competition.

The Public Service Grievance Board dismissed all four grievances.

The Board found that the transfer was made for legitimate business reasons and to remove the grievor from a discordant work environment, not for discriminatory reasons.

The Board also found no breach of the duty of fairness in the handling of the complaint against her, and concluded that the decision not to interview her for the competition was a reasonable, conscious decision by the employer.

The grievor, a public servant, filed a grievance alleging he was transferred out of a permanent AM-20 position without consent and sought reinstatement to a fully-funded, permanent AM-20 position.

The employer raised a preliminary objection regarding the Public Service Grievance Board's jurisdiction to grant such relief.

The Board reviewed the Public Service Act and Regulation 977, concluding that the Civil Service Commission has exclusive jurisdiction to appoint persons to positions.

Consequently, the Board held it lacked jurisdiction to issue a directive placing the grievor in a permanent position.

The grievors challenged the results of a job competition for the new position of Control and Risk Analyst, alleging the selection process was unfair.

The competition utilized a simulation exercise evaluated by a three-person panel using a consensus scoring method, where a single zero score eliminated a candidate.

The Public Service Grievance Board found that the consensus marking scheme was a significant and serious flaw, as it resulted in panel members surrendering their individual judgment.

The grievances were granted, and the employer was ordered to re-run the competition for the affected positions if the parties could not agree to reassess the candidates based on their individual scores.

The grievor filed a grievance alleging non-performance of a settlement agreement.

The agreement provided for an $8,000 payment less statutory deductions.

The grievor argued that the payment should be treated as pensionable earnings and that pension deductions should not have been made from the portion designated for legal fees.

The Employer conceded administrative errors regarding deductions from the legal fees portion and a pension deduction from the balance, owing the grievor $658.23.

The Board dismissed the grievance, finding the settlement agreement's language clear and unambiguous, with no requirement to treat the payment as pensionable earnings.

The grievor, a manager, filed a grievance alleging that the employer breached a longstanding policy that managers should not make less than the people they supervise, resulting in a salary inversion.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the grievance for lack of jurisdiction, arguing that the Board has no power to alter salary ranges set by Cabinet.

The Board dismissed the employer's motion, finding that it has jurisdiction to hear complaints alleging a breach of working conditions or terms of employment, including allegations that an existing policy regarding salary compression was violated.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the grievor's complaint for lack of jurisdiction.

The grievor, a professional engineer reclassified to the Senior Management Group, alleged that the employer breached a policy by not applying a retroactive salary increase to his classification, resulting in salary compression where subordinates earned more than him.

The employer argued the Board lacked jurisdiction to set salary ranges or address salary compression.

The Board held that while it cannot set salary ranges, it has jurisdiction to adjudicate whether a policy forming part of the working conditions or terms of employment was breached.

The motion to dismiss was denied.

The grievor, a manager, was accused of sexual harassment and harassment by a bargaining unit employee.

The employer investigated the complaints, which were ultimately found to be unsubstantiated and withdrawn.

The grievor filed a grievance alleging the employer breached its duty of fairness in conducting the investigation.

The Public Service Grievance Board found that the employer breached its duty of fairness due to unreasonable delay, failure to provide particulars of the allegations for three months, failure to advise the grievor of his right to representation, and failure to keep him informed.

The Board further found that the employer's mishandling of the investigation caused the grievor severe stress, leading to a prolonged sick leave.

The grievance was granted, and the employer was ordered to compensate the grievor for lost income and benefits during his sick leave.

The grievor brought a preliminary motion arguing that the Public Service Grievance Board has the authority to award punitive and aggravated damages.

The Board ruled that it does not have the jurisdiction to award punitive damages, as its remedial powers are compensatory rather than punitive.

However, the Board held that it does have the jurisdiction to award aggravated damages in appropriate circumstances to compensate for mental distress, subject to specific conditions.