Employment and Labour Law

The complainant challenged a 20-day disciplinary suspension.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the complaint because the complainant failed to give notice of his intention to complain within the mandatory 14-day period prescribed by section 8(4) of Regulation 378/07 under the Public Service of Ontario Act.

The Board held that compliance with the time limits is a strict precondition to its jurisdiction and it has no discretion to relieve against them.

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

The complainant filed an application alleging he was improperly terminated due to a disability.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the Board lacked jurisdiction because the complainant was employed on a fixed-term contract on an irregular or on-call basis.

The Board reviewed the employment records and schedules, confirming the complainant's status as an irregular, fixed-term employee.

Under subsection 5(2)5 of O. Reg. 378/07, such employees are not eligible to file a complaint.

Consequently, the Board found it had no jurisdiction and dismissed the application.

The Complainant challenged her dismissal without cause, alleging bad faith, discrimination on the basis of disability, and reprisal for disclosure of wrongdoing under the Public Service of Ontario Act.

The Employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the complaint for failing to disclose a prima facie case.

The Complainant requested extensive document production to respond to the motion.

The Board ordered the Employer to produce documents relevant to whether a disclosure of wrongdoing occurred, as this was intertwined with the preliminary motion.

However, the Board denied production of documents relevant only to the merits of the discrimination claim at this stage.

The complainant, an Operational Manager who was later promoted to Deputy Superintendent, filed a grievance seeking to have a 5% management salary increase applied to his Deputy Superintendent rate rather than his previous classification rate.

He argued he was being paid less than other Deputy Superintendents performing the same work.

The Public Service Grievance Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the 5% increase was a one-time adjustment effective April 1, 2015, at which time the complainant was still in his previous classification.

The Board held it lacked jurisdiction to grant salary parity based on fairness, as there was no breach of an existing term or condition of employment.

The complainant filed a grievance alleging that the employer violated its performance management policy during his performance evaluation.

The employer argued that the Public Service Grievance Board lacked jurisdiction to hear the complaint.

The Board dismissed the complaint without a hearing, finding that section 4(2) of Ontario Regulation 378/07 explicitly prohibits complaints regarding the evaluation of a public servant's performance or the method of evaluating performance.

The complainant filed a grievance against the employer.

Following multiple interim decisions directing the complainant to provide appropriate medical documentation to support a request for hearing accommodation, the complainant failed to comply by the deadline.

Instead, the complainant sent an email withdrawing the complaint.

The Public Service Grievance Board accepted the withdrawal and terminated the proceedings.

The complainant, a retired public servant, filed a complaint claiming entitlement to a lump sum pay-for-performance payment for the 2014 fiscal year.

The employer raised a preliminary objection, arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction because the complainant was no longer a public servant at the time of filing and had not been employed continuously for six months prior to the notice deadline.

The Public Service Grievance Board upheld the preliminary objection, finding that under the Public Service of Ontario Act and O. Reg. 378/07, only current public servants can file grievances regarding terms and conditions of employment.

The complaint was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The complainant sought a lump sum payment for 2014 and 2015, alleging the employer acted in bad faith by failing to disclose that such payments were part of regular compensation before he signed Minutes of Settlement regarding his dismissal.

The employer brought a preliminary objection to dismiss the complaint, arguing the settlement foreclosed the claim.

The Public Service Grievance Board found no basis for the bad faith allegation, as the complainant had received such payments previously and was free to negotiate their inclusion.

The Board upheld the clear language of the settlement releasing the employer from further claims and dismissed the complaint.

The complainant, a Health Care Manager at a detention centre, was discharged for cause following an investigation into numerous performance deficiencies, including medication errors, failure to secure methadone, and administrative backlog.

She argued the discharge was excessive due to a toxic work environment, understaffing, and lack of progressive discipline.

The Public Service Grievance Board dismissed the complaint, finding that while the employer shared some responsibility for the difficult working conditions, the complainant's serious and repeated failures in judgment, particularly regarding medication control and documentation, irreparably damaged the bond of trust necessary for her managerial role in a correctional setting.

The complainant requested that his grievance hearing be conducted by telephone conference due to medical reasons.

The employer objected, arguing the medical note provided was insufficient and that an in-person hearing was necessary to properly respond to the complaint.

The Board found the medical note insufficient as it did not clearly identify the basis for the complainant's inability to attend in person or how the risk of decompensation could be managed.

The Board adjourned the hearing and directed the complainant to provide a more fulsome medical report and a full statement of facts.

The complainant grieved the employer's refusal to pay relocation expenses after he was granted a compassionate transfer to a new detention centre.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the complaint for failing to disclose a prima facie case.

The Public Service Grievance Board allowed the motion and dismissed the grievance, finding that the transfer was employee-requested and did not fall within the recruitment activity exception of the Relocation Expenses Directive.

As no term or condition of employment was violated, the Board had no jurisdiction to grant the requested remedy.

The complainant requested that a scheduled mediation be held in London, while the employer requested it be held in Toronto at the Board's offices in accordance with Practice Note #3.

The complainant argued it was unfair for the employer to insist on Toronto when employer representatives are reimbursed for travel expenses and he is not.

The Board found no basis to depart from its general rule that mediations are scheduled in Toronto unless it results in unreasonable expense and inconvenience, noting that the employer's reimbursement of its representatives is irrelevant.

The mediation was ordered to proceed in Toronto.

The complainant requested disclosure of documents in the employer's custody, to which the employer agreed.

The parties sought an order from the Public Service Grievance Board regarding the disclosure.

The Board ordered that the disclosed documents be used solely for the litigation, not be disseminated to unauthorized persons, and be returned at the conclusion of the litigation, subject to counsel's retention of their litigation file.

The complainant, a public service manager, grieved the calculation of his lump sum maintenance payments for 2012 and subsequent years.

He argued that because he had been in a higher-rated acting assignment for part of the 2010-2011 fiscal year, his subsequent maintenance payments during a period of wage restraint should have been calculated as if the acting assignment had never occurred, yielding a higher pro-rated amount for his home position.

The Public Service Grievance Board dismissed the complaint, finding that while the complainant's position was supported by general equities and pre-2011 policies, the strict wording of the post-2011 compensation policies limited the maintenance payment to an amount 'up to' the actual lump sum paid in respect of the 2010-2011 performance cycle.

The complainant requested a telephone hearing as an accommodation for a disability, asserting he was unable to attend a physical hearing in Toronto.

The employer opposed the request, noting the lack of medical documentation.

The Public Service Grievance Board denied the request for a telephone hearing, directing that the matter be scheduled in the normal course.

The Board held that any request for accommodation of its processes on the basis of disability must be supported by appropriate and sufficient medical documentation outlining the restrictions and limitations.

The complainant, a manager under the Management Compensation Plan, filed a grievance alleging inequity and arbitrary employer action after he did not receive a lump sum performance payment in 2011/2012 and 2012/2013.

The employer had instituted a wage freeze but provided lump sum payments to certain managers at the top of their pay grade to prevent a reduction in their earnings.

The Public Service Grievance Board dismissed the complaint without a hearing under Rule 11, finding that complaints regarding performance-related pay are excluded from its jurisdiction by regulation.

Furthermore, the complainant failed to establish a prima facie case that the denial of the lump sum breached any existing term or condition of his employment.

The complainants, managers in the Ontario Public Service, filed group complaints alleging unequal and unfair administration of compensation for the 2011/12 and 2012/13 fiscal years.

They argued that lump sum payments given only to managers at the top of their pay grade violated principles of fairness and equal pay.

The employer requested the complaints be dismissed for lack of remedial jurisdiction.

The Public Service Grievance Board dismissed the complaints without a hearing, finding that the claims related to the denial of pay for performance, which is explicitly excluded from the Board's jurisdiction under Regulation 378/07.

The Board also held that it lacked authority to set new terms and conditions of employment or to apply bargaining unit terms to managers.

The complainants, a group of managers, filed a complaint alleging that compensation was applied unequally and unfairly when managers at the top of their pay grade received lump sum payments while others did not.

The employer argued that the complaint related to pay for performance, which is excluded from the Board's jurisdiction.

The Board dismissed the complaint without a hearing, finding that the dispute was fundamentally about the denial of pay for performance and therefore beyond its statutory jurisdiction.

The Board also found no viable claim for unequal pay for equal work under applicable legislation.

The complainant, an Operational Manager at a detention centre, received a seven-day suspension for failing to report a food spillage incident in a timely manner.

He filed a grievance contesting the discipline, but the employer raised a preliminary objection that the notice to the Deputy Minister was filed outside the 14-day time limit prescribed by Regulation 378/07.

The complainant argued that the time limits should not apply because his discipline was a reprisal for reporting wrongdoing under Part VI of the Public Service of Ontario Act.

The Public Service Grievance Board held that it lacked the statutory authority to extend the time limits for a terms and conditions complaint.

Furthermore, the Board found that the complainant's occurrence reports did not constitute a disclosure of wrongdoing as defined in the Act, nor were they made in accordance with the statutory procedures.

Consequently, the complaint was dismissed.

The complainants, Operational Managers, filed complaints regarding salary compression with Correctional Officers and wage disparity compared to rehired retired managers.

The employer raised a preliminary objection, arguing the Public Service Grievance Board lacked jurisdiction to grant the requested remedies, which would require setting new terms and conditions of employment.

The Board agreed, finding no existing policy, legislation, or contractual term that provided for the compensation sought.

The complaints were dismissed for want of a prima facie case, as the Board has no authority to set wages or compensation.