Employment and Labour Law

The complainant, a Field Intelligence Officer, filed a grievance alleging the employer violated its Pay on Assignment Policy by failing to provide a promotional increase when he was appointed to a restructured position with increased responsibilities.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the complaint for want of a prima facie case.

The Public Service Grievance Board granted the motion, finding that the complainant remained in the same classification, meaning the assignment did not meet the policy's definition of a promotion.

Furthermore, the Board lacked jurisdiction to reclassify the position or award higher pay based on comparisons to bargaining unit employees.

The complainant filed a grievance claiming relocation expenses after voluntarily taking a job trade from Sudbury to Brockville to avoid involuntary reassignment during downsizing.

Shortly after his move, temporary positions opened at his former location, which were not offered to him.

He alleged the employer breached organizational values of trust and fairness.

The Public Service Grievance Board dismissed the complaint, finding no breach of any term or condition of employment, as the relocation policy explicitly excluded employee-requested moves and the employer's actions were consistent with its operational commitments.

The complainant, a Probation Manager, filed a grievance alleging that the employer violated the terms and conditions of her employment by denying pay for performance during the 2011/2012 fiscal year wage freeze.

The employer raised a preliminary objection, arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction.

The Public Service Grievance Board upheld the employer's objection, finding that O. Reg. 378/07 explicitly excludes complaints regarding compensation provided or denied as a result of performance evaluation.

The Board also noted it lacked the authority to set new terms and conditions of employment, and dismissed the complaint.

The complainants, non-bargaining unit employees covered by the Management Compensation Plan, filed a grievance regarding the employer's decision to pay a lump sum to employees at the maximum of their salary range while denying it to others during a wage freeze year.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the complaint related to pay for performance and was therefore outside the Board's jurisdiction under O. Reg. 378/07.

The Board agreed, finding that the complaint was essentially about the denial of pay for performance and a request to set new terms and conditions of employment, both of which are beyond its statutory authority.

The complaint was dismissed.

The complainants, four Operational Managers, requested further direction regarding the implementation of a previous Board decision that declared the reduction of their rank title to Sergeant to be of no force and effect.

The complainants alleged the employer was not complying with the Board's directions regarding their participation in the consultation process.

The Board found that the employer's actions, including providing timelines for written submissions and an opportunity to present to the Operational Managers' Standing Committee, complied with its previous orders.

The Board reiterated that reducing the rank to Sergeant again would not be a valid alternative consistent with the complainants' terms and conditions of employment.

The employer requested an extension of time to implement a previous Board decision that declared a unilateral change to the complainants' rank titles and uniforms to be of no force and effect.

The employer sought additional time to engage in systematic consultation with Operational Managers across the province.

The complainants consented to the consultation but opposed delaying the return to their previous rank and uniform.

The Board granted the extension to May 31, 2014, to allow for a considered, provincial resolution, and ordered that the complainants be permitted a formal role in the consultation process.

The complainant, an Operational Manager at a detention centre, was dismissed for cause following three incidents, including failing to report a subordinate's excessive use of force and personally using excessive force by kicking a meal hatch on an inmate's arm.

The Public Service Grievance Board found that while the complainant's serious lapses in judgment justified discipline and irreparably damaged the employment relationship, dismissal without any compensation was too severe given his long, exemplary service and the difficult job market.

Because the complainant had applied force to a vulnerable person, the Board was statutorily barred from reinstating him to his former position.

The Board awarded compensation in lieu of reinstatement equivalent to 24 months' wages and benefits.

Three Operational Managers filed complaints alleging the employer breached a confidential memorandum of settlement by paying the settlement monies three days late.

The settlement required payment within 60 days.

The employer argued that based on business days, the payment was on time, or alternatively, the breach was minimal.

The Board found that 'days' in the settlement meant calendar days, resulting in a three-day breach.

The Board ordered the employer to pay three days of interest on the settlement monies, rejecting the complainants' request for $15,000 in damages and the full remedy sought in their original grievances.

The complainants, two Operational Managers, filed grievances regarding their pay upon confirmation in their roles.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the complaints were not filed with the Public Service Grievance Board within the time limits prescribed by Regulation 378/07.

The Board found that the complaints were filed several months late and that, unlike under previous regulations, it no longer possessed the statutory authority to extend the time limits.

Consequently, the Board lacked jurisdiction to hear the complaints on their merits, and the complaints were dismissed.

The complainant was discharged by the employer and subsequently filed a complaint with the Public Service Grievance Board.

The employer raised a preliminary objection, arguing that the Board lacked jurisdiction because the complainant failed to file the Form 1 Application within the mandatory 14-day time limit prescribed by Ontario Regulation 378/07.

The Board agreed, finding that the time limits in the regulation are mandatory and that it has no statutory authority to extend them.

Consequently, the complaint was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The complainant received a ten-day suspension and filed a notice of proposal to file a complaint well outside the 14-day time limit prescribed by section 8 of Ontario Regulation 378/07.

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

The Public Service Grievance Board held that the time limits in the Regulation are mandatory and that notice within the time limit is an essential precondition for the Board to assume jurisdiction.

As there is no statutory authority to relieve against these mandatory time limits, the complaint was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The complainant, a senior manager, grieved that the employer breached a settlement agreement by offering her a Project Manager position reporting to a manager she disliked, and subsequently grieved her termination for just cause.

The employer terminated her after discovering she had attended a full-time college program while collecting short-term sick benefits, and had been untruthful during the ensuing investigation.

The Public Service Grievance Board dismissed both grievances, finding no breach of the settlement agreement and concluding that the complainant's deliberate dishonesty and lack of remorse irrevocably broke the employment relationship, justifying her discharge.

The complainant sought interim relief to postpone an anticipated job competition process, arguing he had an arguable case on the merits and the harm of possible dismissal outweighed any harm to the employer.

The employer opposed, arguing the complainant lacked an arguable case and the balance of harm favoured the employer's planned workforce reorganization.

The Public Service Grievance Board dismissed the application, finding the complainant failed to establish that the Board's broad remedial powers would be insufficient to fashion an appropriate remedy following a full hearing on the merits.

The complainant sought interim relief to prevent the employer from offering his current job as a Field Intelligence Officer for province-wide competition, arguing it breached his employment contract.

The employer opposed, citing its planned reorganization and the Board's ability to fashion a remedy later.

The Public Service Grievance Board dismissed the application for interim relief, finding that its broad remedial powers, including reinstatement and compensatory damages, would be sufficient to provide an adequate remedy if the complainant ultimately succeeded on the merits.

The complainant requested certain particulars and the production of documents in an arbitration under the Public Service Act.

The Public Service Grievance Board granted the request, subject to conditions that the disclosed material be used solely for the litigation, not be disseminated further without an order, and be returned at the conclusion of the proceedings.

The complainant brought a grievance against the employer.

Following a hearing, the Vice-Chair directed the employer to remove the complainant's name from the tracking protocol within fourteen days.

The Vice-Chair remained seized of any implementation issues.

The complainant sought an order for $1,500 in damages, plus $1,000 per week, alleging the employer failed to pay funds owing under Minutes of Settlement within a reasonable time and acted in bad faith.

The employer argued there was no time limit in the settlement and that funds were paid promptly upon receipt of proof of expenses.

The Public Service Grievance Board dismissed the request, finding no breach of the settlement, no bad faith, and that the employer satisfied its obligations within a reasonable time.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the complainant's grievance alleging reprisal for disclosing wrongdoing.

The employer argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because the complainant did not provide proper notice under the Public Service of Ontario Act, 2006, and the allegations did not constitute a disclosure of wrongdoing under Part VI.

The Board found that the complainant's allegations of human rights breaches to his Deputy Minister qualified as a disclosure of wrongdoing.

The Board further held that the mandatory notice and timeliness requirements of Regulation 378/07 do not apply to reprisal complaints under Part VI.

The employer's motion was dismissed, and the complaint was allowed to proceed.

The complainant, an Operational Manager, filed a grievance 14 years after a 1996 report that he alleged was defamatory and negatively impacted his career and personal life.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the complaint was out of time and outside the Board's jurisdiction.

The complainant argued the grievance was timely because a 2010 Superior Court decision finding the report defamatory against other managers provided new information.

The Public Service Grievance Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the 14-year delay was too long, inherently prejudicial, and that the 2010 court decision did not constitute a new working condition or term of employment to restart the time limits.

The complainant, an Operational Manager, filed a grievance alleging the employer breached his employment contract by treating him unfairly and arbitrarily in its handling of a subordinate's harassment complaints and grievances against him.

The employer settled the subordinate's grievances by reassigning the complainant without providing him timely notice of the allegations or an opportunity to respond.

The complainant subsequently left the workplace due to the resulting poisoned work environment and stress.

The Public Service Grievance Board found the employer breached its duty of fairness and acted arbitrarily.

The Board awarded the complainant compensation for lost overtime and pay-for-performance, as well as $5,000 in damages for mental distress resulting from the breach of procedural fairness provisions in his employment contract.