Employment and Labour Law

The grievor, a Human Resources Consultant, took a two-year leave of absence to avoid being declared surplus during a downsizing and to reach ten years of continuous service for retirement benefits.

During his leave, several vacancies arose and were filled through open competitions.

The grievor filed a grievance claiming he should have been considered for direct assignment to these positions or, alternatively, that the employer had a duty to inform him of the vacancies and his options.

The Public Service Grievance Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the grievor was not a surplus employee while on leave and therefore had no right to direct assignment.

The Board also found no breach of any duty to inform, as the grievor had made incorrect assumptions about his status and failed to maintain contact with the employer to seek advice.

The grievor sought clarification of a previous Board decision regarding the interpretation of Minutes of Settlement.

The grievor argued that a $3,369.00 sick benefit payment made during the settlement period should be paid in addition to the gross settlement amount.

The Board clarified that the $3,369.00 payment represents a part payment of the total sum payable by the employer and must be included in the calculation of the settlement amount, rather than paid in addition to it.

In a grievance arbitration, the Employer requested an adjournment to review requested documents for privilege and confidentiality before production.

The Grievor objected.

The Board granted the adjournment but subsequently ordered the Employer to produce all non-privileged documents forthwith and to provide reasons for any documents withheld.

The Board scheduled a hearing to address arguments on privilege for the withheld documents.

The grievor filed a grievance alleging the employer failed to provide a healthy and safe work environment, resulting in permanent bronchial damage, and sought a transfer to accommodate his medical condition.

During the course of the proceedings, the grievor obtained a permanent, full-time position at a higher classification with another Ministry.

The employer brought a motion to dismiss the grievance for mootness.

The Public Service Grievance Board granted the motion, finding that the factual underpinnings of the case had been eliminated and there was no longer a live controversy or remedy to grant.

The grievor's request for legal and relocation costs was also denied as there was no evidence of bad faith by the employer.

The grievor, an Area Manager, filed a grievance alleging that the employer failed to apply its Management Compensation Plan (MCP) Compression Policy, resulting in a significant salary disparity between himself and a subordinate professional engineer.

The employer raised preliminary objections regarding the board's jurisdiction and the timeliness of the grievance.

The Public Service Grievance Board held that it lacked the legal jurisdiction to deal with supervisory salary compression or conversion disputes, or to intervene in the employer's application of the MCP Compression Policy.

The grievance was denied on jurisdictional grounds.

The grievor, a bargaining unit employee represented by OPSEU, was seconded to a management position.

Her secondment was terminated early, and she filed a grievance with the Public Service Grievance Board after OPSEU advised they could not assist her.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

The Board held that under the collective agreement and the Public Service Act, a bargaining unit employee seconded to a management position retains their rights under the collective agreement.

Therefore, the Grievance Settlement Board, not the Public Service Grievance Board, had jurisdiction.

The grievance was dismissed.

The grievor filed a grievance seven years after being disciplined via demotion, arguing he only recently discovered a policy prohibiting demotion as discipline.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the grievance for excessive delay.

The Public Service Grievance Board granted the motion and dismissed the grievance, finding that a seven-year delay was unreasonable and inherently prejudicial to the employer, as the grievor had a responsibility to inquire into his rights at the time of the discipline.

The Grievor alleged unfair treatment and mismanagement by his supervisor regarding two harassment grievances filed against him by a bargaining unit employee, which caused him severe stress and led to sick leave.

The Employer brought preliminary motions to dismiss the grievance for lack of jurisdiction and untimeliness, arguing the underlying grievances were withdrawn and no discipline was imposed.

The Public Service Grievance Board dismissed the Employer's motions, finding that the Grievor was entitled to fairness in the investigation process regardless of the outcome, and that the five-month delay in filing was not excessive given his medical leave.

The grievor filed a grievance objecting that he was not interviewed for an Area Appraisal Analyst position.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the grievance was not arbitrable, arguing that management has the right to select whom to interview and there was no allegation of bias or procedural flaw.

The Public Service Grievance Board agreed with the employer, finding that it lacked jurisdiction to second-guess management's selection of interviewees absent allegations of a flawed, biased, or discriminatory process.

The grievance was dismissed as not arbitrable.

The grievor filed a grievance alleging wrongful termination from her position at the Liquor License Board of Ontario.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the Public Service Grievance Board lacked jurisdiction because the grievor was hired under the Liquor License Act, not the Public Service Act.

The Board agreed, finding that the grievor was not employed under the jurisdiction of a Deputy Minister as required by Regulation 977, and dismissed the grievance for lack of jurisdiction.

The grievor, a probationary employee, was released from her employment pursuant to s. 22(5) of the Public Service Act.

She filed a grievance alleging wrongful dismissal.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the Public Service Grievance Board lacked jurisdiction to hear the grievance because the grievor was released during her first year of employment.

The Board held that it lacked jurisdiction to deal with the grievance of a probationary employee released under s. 22(5) of the Act, as such employees are excluded by s. 42(1) of Regulation 881.

The grievance was dismissed.

The grievor, a bargaining unit employee, was appointed to an acting position outside the bargaining unit.

He filed a grievance seeking a declaration that his acting appointment had become a permanent appointment.

The Employer raised preliminary objections to the Board's jurisdiction.

The Public Service Grievance Board held that it lacked jurisdiction to grant the remedy sought, as the Civil Service Commission has exclusive authority to make permanent appointments.

Furthermore, the Board held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the grievance because the grievor retained his bargaining unit classification, and therefore his working conditions were governed by the collective agreement rather than the regulations under the Public Service Act.

The grievor, a management employee, exercised her surplus rights to accept a new position classified as management.

Unbeknownst to her, the union had grieved the position's exclusion from the bargaining unit.

The employer later conceded the union's grievance and reclassified the position into the bargaining unit, resulting in the grievor losing management benefits and career opportunities.

The grievor alleged constructive dismissal.

The Public Service Grievance Board held that while constructive dismissal does not apply under the statutory grievance scheme, the employer violated the grievor's working conditions by failing to treat her fairly and equitably when it withheld information about the classification dispute.

The Board ordered the employer to place the grievor in a suitable management position and reimburse her for lost amounts, including union dues.

The grievors, first-level supervisory staff at the Whitby Jail, filed a grievance alleging that the employer acted arbitrarily, discriminatorily, and in bad faith by failing to address the erosion and elimination of salary differentials between managers and their bargaining unit subordinates.

The employer objected that the grievance was inarbitrable.

The Public Service Grievance Board dismissed the grievance, finding that it lacked jurisdiction to rectify salary relationships or revise compensation levels for management personnel, and that the grievors failed to establish bad faith or discriminatory conduct by the employer.

The grievor, a shift supervisor, filed a grievance alleging that a subordinate bargaining unit employee was paid at a higher hourly rate due to salary compression.

The employer objected to the Board's jurisdiction, arguing that setting compensation levels for management personnel is the exclusive function of the Civil Service Commission.

The Public Service Grievance Board found that while it has jurisdiction to hear complaints regarding working conditions and terms of employment, it lacks the authority to rectify salary relationships or review the adequacy of the management compensation plan.

The grievance was dismissed as inarbitrable.

The grievor, a public servant, alleged that he was wrongly denied a position in the Executive Compensation Plan after his former position was abolished and he was assigned to a lower-classified position with salary protection.

The employer raised preliminary objections regarding timeliness, procedure, and the Board's jurisdiction to order an appointment to the executive level.

The Board dismissed the preliminary objections, finding the grievance timely and within its jurisdiction.

On the merits, the Board found that the grievor's former position was abolished under Section 17 of the Regulations, which only provides salary protection, rather than reclassified under Section 16, which would entitle him to the first available position at his former level.

The grievance was dismissed.

The grievor, a dentist at a regional centre, was suspended with pay for the remainder of the day following an altercation with his supervisor.

He was subsequently suspended without pay for successive twenty-day periods pending an investigation into his professional fitness by the Royal College of Dental Surgeons.

The grievor filed grievances alleging improper suspension and seeking damages.

The Public Service Grievance Board found it had jurisdiction to hear the suspension grievances, determining they were disciplinary in nature.

The Board held that the initial suspension for the remainder of the day was justified due to insubordination, but the subsequent suspensions without pay were improper because the employer failed to conduct its own hearing as required by the regulations and instead relied on an external investigation.

The claims for damages and costs were dismissed as they were raised too late in the proceedings.

The grievors, Schedule 6 employees in the Audit Branch, grieved a new travel policy that altered how travel time was calculated and absorbed by the employer.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the Public Service Grievance Board lacked jurisdiction because the Public Service Act and Regulation 881 do not provide for travel time compensation for Schedule 6 employees, and thus there was no breach of the regulation.

The Board agreed, finding that it had no jurisdiction to amend the travel policy guidelines or impose its own views on fairness, as the regulation did not circumscribe management's rights regarding travel time for these employees.

The grievances were dismissed.

The grievor, a manager at the Guelph Correctional Centre, grieved that his salary was lower than that of a subordinate bargaining unit employee due to wage restraints.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the Public Service Grievance Board lacked jurisdiction to alter salaries established by the Civil Service Commission or negotiated in a collective agreement.

The Board agreed, finding it had no authority to increase or decrease wages established for the Management Compensation Plan or the bargaining unit.

The grievance was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The grievor, a bargaining unit employee, filed a grievance alleging that a job competition for a non-bargaining unit management position was not held in good faith and that his war service preference rights under Regulation 881 were violated.

The Grievance Settlement Board previously found it lacked jurisdiction because the position was outside the bargaining unit.

The grievance was then referred to the Public Service Grievance Board.

The employer raised a preliminary objection to jurisdiction.

The Board held that bargaining unit employees must rely on the collective agreement and the Grievance Settlement Board, while the Public Service Grievance Board only has jurisdiction over non-bargaining unit employees claiming a violation of the Public Service Act or Regulation 881.

The grievance was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.