Employment and Labour Law

The applicant filed a human rights application regarding her dismissal from employment, while concurrent grievances were also filed on her behalf.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application pending the conclusion of the grievance process.

The applicant opposed deferral, arguing that not all issues would be addressed in the grievances and that she had limited control over the grievance process.

The Tribunal found significant overlap in the issues, particularly regarding the dismissal, and held that the orderly administration of justice favoured deferral.

The application was deferred pending the completion of the grievance process.

The applicant filed two human rights applications alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability and reprisal against his employer and various consultants.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal granted the applicant's request to amend his first application.

The Tribunal denied a request to dismiss the application against one respondent under section 53(8) of the Code, but directed a summary hearing to determine whether the applications against the consulting respondents had no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal also ordered the consolidation of the two applications.

The applicant alleged that a sick leave provision in the collective agreement discriminated against him on the basis of disability.

The respondent requested an order for disclosure of the applicant's occupational health and claims management file to respond to the application.

The Tribunal found the file arguably relevant to establish whether the applicant had a disability resulting in absences, but limited disclosure to documents from April 2013 onwards to protect privacy.

The respondent's request for an extension of time to file its response was also granted.

The complainants, Operational Managers at the Central East Correctional Centre, grieved the employer's failure to offer them overtime opportunities for hospital escort duty before hiring paid duty police.

They argued that staffing shortages constituted an 'emergency' under the applicable policy, which required managers to be used before police in an emergency.

The Public Service Grievance Board dismissed the grievances, finding that the ordinary meaning of 'emergency' implies sudden danger and immediacy, which did not apply to the recurring staffing situations grieved.

The employer's practice of using police for non-911 hospital escorts did not violate the policy.

The complainant, an Operational Manager at a detention centre, filed multiple grievances claiming compensation for missed overtime opportunities, including community escort duty.

The Public Service Grievance Board found that the employer did not breach the terms of employment by using police for community escort duty, as the situations were not emergencies.

The Board also dismissed claims regarding shifts filled at straight time.

However, the Board allowed grievances where the complainant's name was skipped or where overtime was improperly offered to acting managers or managers with higher accumulated hours.

The Board ordered the employer to offer the complainant additional overtime opportunities on a priority basis, rejecting the complainant's request for monetary compensation.

The Grievor, an Acting Manager of an ambulance service, was dismissed for cause following allegations of ongoing sexual and racial harassment, including inappropriate touching and comments directed at female subordinates.

The Grievor admitted to some inappropriate comments but denied physical contact.

The Public Service Grievance Board found the testimony of the female subordinates credible and concluded that the Grievor engaged in serious misconduct amounting to sexual assault and an abuse of power.

The Board upheld the termination, finding that progressive discipline was not appropriate given the severity of the misconduct.

A dissenting member argued that the penalty was too harsh and that the employer shared blame for tolerating a 'boys club' culture.

The Grievor was appointed by Order-in-Council as a member of the Rent Review Hearings Board for a one-year term.

After her term expired and was not renewed, she filed a grievance alleging improper dismissal.

The Employer raised a preliminary objection that the Grievor was not a public servant under the Public Service Act and therefore the Public Service Grievance Board lacked jurisdiction.

The Board agreed, finding that the Grievor was appointed under the Residential Rent Regulation Act, which explicitly states that members are not public servants.

The grievance was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The grievor was released from his position as a Treasury Policy Advisor due to a ministry reorganization and downsizing, but was subsequently redeployed to another ministry at the same classification and salary.

He filed a grievance alleging his release was a disguised dismissal.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the grievance, arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction to review a release under s. 22(4) of the Public Service Act and that the matter was moot due to the redeployment.

The Board held that while it has jurisdiction to review a release if bad faith is alleged, the grievor failed to provide any evidence of bad faith.

The Board concluded it had no grounds to review the employer's business decision and dismissed the grievance.

The Grievor, a Provincial Medical Toxicologist, was declared surplus and her position abolished during a major downsizing initiative by the Ministry of Labour.

She grieved the termination, alleging it was done in bad faith and was a disguised dismissal based on discrimination regarding her previous leaves of absence.

The Public Service Grievance Board found that the Employer made a legitimate business decision to eliminate the position under the Expenditure Control Program.

The Board concluded the Grievor failed to satisfy the onus of proving bad faith, discrimination, or unfairness in the decision-making process, and dismissed the grievance.

The grievor, a professional engineer, sought a retroactive salary increase for 1990 based on an interest arbitration award released in 1991.

Before the award was released, the grievor was promoted to the Senior Management Group (SMG), which is excluded from bringing working conditions grievances to the Public Service Grievance Board.

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

The Board denied the motion, finding that the grievor was complaining about a matter that occurred while he was in a classification entitled to grieve, and he did not lose this right merely because he was subsequently promoted.

The grievor, a medical consultant, was released from her employment with the Ministry of Labour due to budget cuts under the Expenditure Control Plan.

The employer used an assessment process to determine which of the five medical consultants would be retained.

The grievor alleged that the assessment was unfair and inaccurate, leading to her wrongful release.

The Public Service Grievance Board found that the assessment process was fundamentally flawed and lacked procedural fairness, as it was conducted hastily, contained significant errors, and provided no opportunity for the incumbents to be interviewed or review their assessments.

The grievance was granted, and the grievor was awarded compensation equal to seven months of notice.

The grievors, former employees of the Liquor Control Board of Ontario (LCBO), filed grievances alleging wrongful dismissal.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the Public Service Grievance Board lacked jurisdiction because the grievors were hired under the Liquor Control Act and were 'crown employees' rather than 'public servants' under the Public Service Act.

The Board agreed, finding that its jurisdiction under Regulation 977 is limited to persons employed in the public service under the jurisdiction of a Deputy Minister.

As the LCBO does not appoint under the Public Service Act, the Board dismissed the grievances for lack of jurisdiction.

The grievor, a senior executive, was released from employment and declared surplus pursuant to s. 22(4) of the Public Service Act.

Eleven months after the expiry of the 21-day time limit, the grievor filed a grievance alleging wrongful dismissal.

The employer raised preliminary objections regarding jurisdiction and timeliness.

The Public Service Grievance Board assumed jurisdiction by treating the matter as an alleged wrongful dismissal grievance but declined to extend the time limits for filing.

Finding no satisfactory explanation for the lengthy delay, the Board dismissed the grievance as untimely.

Following an arbitration award that reinstated the grievor with full compensation, the parties disagreed on whether compensation included legal costs.

The grievor sought legal costs, citing a previous exceptional case.

The Public Service Grievance Board denied the request, reaffirming its long-standing policy not to award legal costs in grievance arbitrations, finding no unique circumstances to justify an exception.

The Grievor was released from his employment on the last day of his one-year probationary period.

He filed grievances alleging wrongful dismissal and improper working conditions.

The Employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the grievances for lack of jurisdiction, arguing that under section 22(5) of the Public Service Act, a probationary employee released within the first year has no right to a hearing on the merits.

The Grievor argued he had completed his probationary period by working on the final day.

The Public Service Grievance Board held that releasing the employee on the 365th day satisfied the statutory requirement for termination within the first year.

The Board concluded it lacked jurisdiction to hear the dismissal grievance or the working conditions grievance, and dismissed both.

The grievor, a former management employee of the Workers' Compensation Board, filed a grievance alleging wrongful dismissal.

The employer raised a preliminary objection, arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction because the grievor was not a public servant under the Public Service Act.

The Public Service Grievance Board agreed, finding that the grievor was hired by the Chair of the Workers' Compensation Board, a Schedule III Crown Agency, and was not employed under the jurisdiction of a Deputy Minister as required by section 36(1) of Regulation 977.

The grievance was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The grievor, a unit manager at a detention centre, filed a grievance alleging that he was targeted by the union and subjected to a campaign of harassment, including a withdrawn sexual harassment complaint and an abandoned disciplinary investigation.

He sought the removal of negative reports from his file, priority for future promotions, and financial compensation for lost vacation credits and legal costs.

The Public Service Grievance Board allowed the grievance in part, ordering the employer to purge the grievor's file of all references to the sexual harassment complaint and the abandoned disciplinary hearing.

The Board dismissed the claims for promotional priority and financial compensation, finding no wrongdoing by the employer that would justify such relief.

The grievor, a management employee, filed a grievance alleging he was denied an interview for a bargaining unit position.

The employer raised a preliminary objection regarding the Board's jurisdiction.

The Board determined that while the grievor had the right to apply for the position, the Board lacked jurisdiction to inquire into the employer's assessment of applicants or the selection process.

As these matters fall within the collective agreement and the jurisdiction of the Grievance Settlement Board, and the grievor's application was in fact considered, the grievance was dismissed.

Following a successful grievance arbitration, the grievor submitted a bill of costs for legal expenses.

The employer refused to pay, arguing the Public Service Grievance Board lacked jurisdiction to award costs.

The Board held that its remedial authority implicitly includes the power to award reasonable legal costs to restore a successful grievor to their rightful financial position.

After reviewing the grievor's counsel's time records, the Board reduced the claimed amount of $46,797.18 and fixed reasonable legal costs at $14,047.18.

The grievor, a bargaining unit employee, applied for a non-bargaining unit position and was unsuccessful.

He filed a grievance with the Public Service Grievance Board.

The employer objected to the Board's jurisdiction, arguing that the grievor, as a bargaining unit employee, falls under the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act and must grieve through the Grievance Settlement Board.

The Board agreed, finding that the definition of 'persons employed in the public service' under the Public Service Act regulations excludes those defined as 'employees' under the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act.

The grievance was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.