Employment and Labour Law

The complainant filed a grievance alleging his position was made redundant, resulting in an improper reassignment or constructive dismissal.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the reassignment and performance evaluation were not reviewable by the Public Service Grievance Board.

Following an unsuccessful mediation session, the Board issued a preliminary decision setting a schedule for the parties to file written submissions on the employer's jurisdictional objection.

The Employer raised a preliminary objection that the complainant's grievance regarding workplace discipline was filed out of time under Regulation 378/07 of the Public Service of Ontario Act, 2006.

The Board directed the complainant to respond, but the complainant requested an adjournment because his representative was unavailable for medical reasons.

The Board granted the adjournment, noting it had inadvertently failed to copy the complainant on its earlier direction, and ordered the complainant to file a written response to the timeliness objection by a specified date.

The complainant, a correctional manager previously reinstated without compensation following a discharge for mismanaging a use of force incident, filed a new complaint seeking compensation and alleging discrimination, bias, and misconduct by employer counsel.

The employer brought a motion to dismiss the new claims.

The Public Service Grievance Board dismissed the new complaint, finding that the overarching issue of the discharge had already been decided in a prior hearing and the doctrine of res judicata applied.

The Board held that the new evidence alleged by the complainant would not have changed the result of the prior decision.

Furthermore, the Board dismissed the allegations against employer counsel, finding them barred by the doctrine of absolute privilege.

The complainant failed to attend a scheduled mediation before the Public Service Grievance Board.

The employer attended and made submissions.

The Vice-Chair directed that the matter be rescheduled for med/arb and ordered the complainant to provide full written particulars of his complaints at least 60 days prior to the next scheduled date.

The employer reserved the right to seek dismissal if the complainant fails to attend the rescheduled date.

The complainant, a public servant, filed a complaint contesting a two-day disciplinary suspension.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the complaint was untimely under Regulation 378/07 of the Public Service of Ontario Act.

The complainant received notice of the suspension on June 30, 2017, but did not file his formal notice of complaint until July 21, 2017, exceeding the mandatory 14-day time limit.

The Board held that the time limits are mandatory and it lacks jurisdiction to extend them.

The employer's preliminary objection was upheld and the complaint was dismissed.

The complainant filed a reprisal complaint alleging that the employer's written submissions in a previous proceeding before the Board were prejudicial and constituted an act of reprisal.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the complaint.

The Board held that the statements made by the employer in its legal pleadings were protected by absolute legal privilege and could not form the basis of a reprisal complaint.

The complaint was dismissed.

The complainant, a Sergeant, filed a grievance seeking a 6.4% retroactive wage increase that was provided to managers who were in their positions as of April 1, 2016.

The complainant commenced employment after this date.

The employer raised preliminary objections regarding the timeliness of the complaint and the inclusion of a second employee who had not filed a separate complaint.

The Public Service Grievance Board found that the second employee was not properly a complainant before the Board.

On the merits, the Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the term of employment providing the wage increase clearly applied only to those employed as of April 1, 2016, and the Board had no authority to create a new term of employment or award a wage increase not provided for in the existing terms.

The complainants, Administrative Assistants in Youth Centres excluded from collective bargaining, filed grievances claiming they were improperly denied a 1.4% lump sum payment given to their unionized OPSEU counterparts in 2016.

They argued this breached Salary Directive 33-43, which linked their salary adjustments to OPSEU's.

They also claimed a breach of equal pay and pay equity legislation.

The Public Service Grievance Board dismissed the employer's preliminary objection on timeliness, finding the complaints were filed within 14 days of the complainants becoming aware of the issue.

On the merits, the Board dismissed the complaints, finding that the OPSEU lump sum was explicitly distinct from base salary and thus did not trigger the salary directive.

The Board also dismissed the equal pay and pay equity claims, as no male comparator doing the same work was identified, and the employer's pay equity plan showed the complainants' job rates were higher than the male comparator class.

A group of Sergeants at a correctional centre filed a grievance seeking enhanced overtime pay for time spent working during a labour disruption.

The employer had paid enhanced overtime for certain periods but required a 40-hour straight-time threshold to be met each week and ceased enhanced overtime payments on the second weekend, claiming normal operations had resumed.

The Public Service Grievance Board found that the employer correctly applied the 40-hour threshold for regular scheduled hours.

However, the Board held that the Sergeants who remained at the facility over the second weekend to perform clean-up and preparation work were still engaged in labour disruption related work and were therefore entitled to the enhanced overtime rate until the end of the approved period.

The employer requested disclosure of Crown Brief records in a related criminal matter for use in a grievance arbitration.

On consent of the parties, the Public Service Grievance Board ordered the Crown to disclose specific statements from the Crown Brief to the employer's counsel, subject to the Wagg screening process.

The Board further ordered that the records be shared with the employee's counsel and sealed from the public record pursuant to the Public Service of Ontario Act, 2006 and the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The complainant, a contract Operational Manager at a correctional complex, alleged that his suspension pending investigation and the subsequent non-renewal of his contract were reprisals for reporting a colleague's time theft to the Deputy Minister.

The employer maintained that the suspension was a bona fide response to allegations that the complainant had unauthorized access to restricted keys and areas, and that the contract was not renewed because the complainant declined offers to work at other institutions due to his fears of the 'Code of Silence'.

The Board dismissed the complaints, finding that the employer's actions were motivated by legitimate managerial concerns rather than a desire to punish the complainant for his disclosure of wrongdoing.

The complainant, a public servant, filed a complaint regarding the adequacy and fairness of her salary.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the complaint on the basis that the complainant failed to give notice of her intention to file the complaint to her Deputy Minister within 14 days of becoming aware of the issue, as required by s. 8(4) of Regulation 378/07 under the Public Service of Ontario Act.

The complainant conceded that her notice was filed outside the 14-day window following her last conversation with management about a potential salary increase.

The Board held that the time limits in the Regulation are mandatory and it has no jurisdiction to relieve against them.

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

The complainant filed a complaint challenging his disciplinary suspension.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the complaint on the basis that it was untimely.

The complainant acknowledged that he did not notify the Deputy Minister within the mandatory 14-day period set out in Regulation 378/07 under the Public Service of Ontario Act.

The Public Service Grievance Board held that the timelines are mandatory and it has no jurisdiction to extend them.

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

The complainant, a senior planner, filed complaints regarding a finding of conflict of interest, reassignment, and alleged reprisal for disclosing wrongdoing.

The employer raised preliminary objections.

The Public Service Grievance Board dismissed the complaints without a hearing on the merits.

The Board found that the terms and conditions complaint was filed outside the mandatory 14-day time limit under O. Reg. 378/07, which the Board has no jurisdiction to extend.

While the Board held it generally has jurisdiction over conflict of interest matters affecting employment terms, the untimeliness barred the claim.

The reprisal complaint under Part VI of the Public Service of Ontario Act was also dismissed because the alleged disclosure of wrongdoing occurred after the reassignment complained of.

Finally, the Board declined a request from the press to release unredacted submissions containing confidential information from an Integrity Commissioner investigation.

In a discharge grievance, the parties addressed disclosure and production issues at the first hearing date.

The Vice Chair directed the Employer to contact the Greater Sudbury Police Service to collect and disclose all documents arguably relevant to the events leading to the Complainant's discharge.

The complainant, a Youth Services Manager with permanent medical restrictions, alleged the employer failed to accommodate him when it removed him from the assignment roster ahead of an anticipated strike.

The employer required managers to remain on-site 24/7 during the strike, which conflicted with the complainant's restriction requiring 8-10 hours away from the facility nightly.

The Board found the employer's decision reasonable, as it could not ensure safe access across a picket line and could not ignore the medical restrictions or its safety obligations.

The application was dismissed.

The employer brought a motion to suppress the identity of an employee ('Officer Doe') who reported information that led to the complainant's termination.

The employer argued that the identity should be protected by informant privilege and the disclosure of wrongdoing provisions of the Public Service of Ontario Act, 2006.

The complainant argued that procedural fairness required disclosure, particularly because the employer had entered an occurrence report written by Officer Doe into evidence.

The Board dismissed the employer's motion, holding that procedural fairness and the principles of natural justice required the disclosure of Officer Doe's identity to allow the complainant the opportunity to cross-examine the individual.

The complainant, a manager, grieved the employer's decision to recover a lump sum payment and deny him certain pay improvements announced in late 2015.

The complainant had been on a secondment to a bargaining unit position and returned to his home managerial position in May 2015.

The employer argued that the complainant was ineligible for the lump sum because he was not in a non-bargaining unit position on the required eligibility date of March 31, 2015.

The Board agreed with the employer's interpretation of the compensation policies, finding that pay treatment aligns with the position to which an employee is assigned and working at a given time.

The complaint was dismissed.

The complainant sought an order directing the employer to pay a revised amount under their Minutes of Settlement to reflect a retroactive pay increase awarded to her former job class.

The employer argued the settlement amount was fixed and the agreement precluded further compensation.

The Public Service Grievance Board dismissed the motion, finding it lacked equitable jurisdiction to amend the clear and express terms of the negotiated settlement agreement.

The complainant failed to attend the scheduled hearing due to illness.

The Board heard three related applications on the same day and dismissed them.

The Board directed the complainant to advise within 30 days if he sought a further opportunity to be heard, failing which his application would be dismissed.

The complainant did not respond to the direction.

The application was dismissed.