Employment and Labour Law

The complainant, who alleged that a management-initiated workplace discrimination and harassment complaint against her was a reprisal, sought production of various documents from the employer.

The employer objected to several requests on the basis of relevance and overbreadth.

The Public Service Grievance Board granted production of documents related to the complainant's expressions of concern about an employee engagement process, organizational structure documents, and communications regarding the initiation of the harassment complaint.

The Board denied requests for a cultural audit report, an intelligence review, and broad requests for all communications and employee addresses, finding them overbroad or insufficiently connected to the issues in dispute.

The employer raised a preliminary objection arguing that the complainants' notices of proposal to file a complaint were untimely under Regulation 378/07.

The dispute centered on when the complainants became aware of the working condition giving rise to the complaint regarding the removal of a salary allowance under a new compensation plan.

The Board found that the working condition crystallized gradually and the complainants did not have the complete picture until they saw the changes reflected in their pay stubs.

Therefore, the notices were filed within the 14-day time limit and the preliminary objection was dismissed.

The complainant filed four separate complaints alleging discrimination on the basis of family status, disability, and gender.

The parties agreed that the second, third, and fourth complaints should be consolidated as they share common questions of law and fact and arise from the same series of occurrences.

The parties also agreed that the first complaint should be heard separately as it raises discrete issues and is already scheduled for a hearing.

The Board ordered the consolidation of the three later complaints and directed that the first complaint proceed as scheduled.

The complainant filed a grievance contesting the employer's decision to deny him a leave of absence to attend a job interview.

The employer raised preliminary objections, arguing the complaint breached the mandatory process and timelines under Regulation 378/07 of the Public Service of Ontario Act, 2006.

The Public Service Grievance Board found that the complaint was filed prematurely, before the expiry of the mandatory 30-day dispute resolution period set out in section 9(5) of the Regulation.

As the Board lacks jurisdiction to amend mandatory time limits, the complaint was dismissed.

The Complainant brought a grievance before the Public Service Grievance Board regarding an alleged breach of the Employer's respectful Workplace Policy.

The Board found that there was no breach of the policy.

The Employer was directed to restore the Complainant's personnel file to its condition prior to the incident.

The hearing of the complaint was adjourned on consent of the parties.

The Board cancelled the previously scheduled December hearing date and issued directions for the parties to work towards completing an Agreed Statement of Fact.

A timeline was established for drafting and responding to the Agreed Statement of Fact, with a teleconference scheduled to determine its status and any other procedural matters.

The complainant filed a grievance alleging that the employer failed to accommodate her at the workplace following a medical leave of absence due to alleged bullying and harassment.

The employer raised preliminary objections, arguing that the complaint was filed outside the mandatory timelines set out in Regulation 378/07 under the Public Service of Ontario Act.

The Public Service Grievance Board found that the complainant became aware of the alleged violation of a working condition months before filing her notice with the Deputy Minister, and further failed to file her complaint with the Board within 14 days after the expiry of the dispute resolution period.

As the timelines in the Regulation are mandatory, the Board concluded it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the complaint.

The complainant, a Deputy Superintendent of Administration at a correctional facility, filed a grievance challenging the employer's practice of assigning him the duties of an Operational Manager during his on-call rotation.

He argued the assignment was outside his job description and posed health and safety risks due to his lack of specialized training.

The Public Service Grievance Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the assignment fell within the broad scope of his managerial duties and that the employer had legitimate business reasons for the assignments.

The Board also found no violation of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, as the employer took reasonable precautions to protect the complainant.

The Complainant, an Operational Manager at a correctional facility, was dismissed for cause following allegations of workplace harassment against a female colleague and the unauthorized expiry of a non-association alert between two high-risk inmates.

The Public Service Grievance Board found that the Complainant engaged in a pattern of harassing conduct that poisoned his colleague's work environment.

Furthermore, the Board concluded that his expiry of the non-association alert was reckless, unauthorized, and placed staff and inmates at risk.

Given the Complainant's lack of remorse and failure to take responsibility, the Board upheld the dismissal and dismissed the grievance.

The complainant alleged that the employer failed to comply with a previous Board decision directing the development of a training plan following his reinstatement.

Subsequently, the complainant's employment was terminated again, and he filed a new complaint alleging unjust dismissal, citing the lack of proper training as a factor.

The Board found that the two complaints shared common questions of fact and that the relief claimed arose from the same series of occurrences.

Consequently, the Board ordered the consolidation of the two files for hearing.

The complainant brought a grievance before the Public Service Grievance Board under the Public Service of Ontario Act.

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

The complainant, a public servant, brought a grievance against the Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of the Solicitor General).

Following submissions, the Public Service Grievance Board directed the employer to remove the complainant's name from the tracking protocol within fourteen days.

The Vice-Chair remained seized of any issues concerning the implementation of the order.

The employer brought preliminary objections to three complaints filed by the complainant, arguing that one complaint was identical to a previously withdrawn complaint and sought remedies within the exclusive jurisdiction of the WSIB, and that the other two complaints failed to establish a prima facie case.

The Public Service Grievance Board allowed the motion in part, ruling that the complainant could not pursue matters covered by the withdrawn complaint or seek compensation for health impacts within the WSIB's exclusive jurisdiction.

However, the Board found that the complaints could proceed on issues not covered by the 2017 complaint and not within the WSIB's jurisdiction, and that a viable case was established regarding the employer's handling of the alleged harassment under workplace policies.

The complainant, a Sergeant at a maximum-security correctional facility, grieved two separate disciplinary suspensions.

The first was a one-day suspension for failing to notice and report that an intermittent inmate had not returned to the facility, allowing the inmate to remain unlawfully at large for three days.

The second was a three-day suspension for failing to file a timely occurrence report after learning that a subordinate officer had allowed an inmate to use a personal cellular phone.

The Public Service Grievance Board found that the complainant's conduct in both instances violated workplace policies and reporting requirements.

The Board concluded that both suspensions were reasonable and fair, and dismissed the complaints.

The complainants, superintendents and deputy superintendents at correctional facilities, filed a grievance seeking stand-by pay and other remedies for their on-call duties.

The employer raised a preliminary objection, arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction as it was a classification grievance, and alternatively, that there was no prima facie case.

The Public Service Grievance Board found that while the complaint was not a classification grievance, it failed to establish a prima facie case.

The applicable compensation directive for stand-by pay explicitly excluded the complainants' Schedule 6 classification, and the Board lacked jurisdiction to create new compensation terms or enforce policies not grounded in existing terms of employment.

The complaint was dismissed without a hearing on the merits.

The complainant brought a grievance before the Public Service Grievance Board.

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

A group of Deputy Superintendents filed a complaint alleging unfair compensation regarding standby and on-call duties under the Management Compensation Plan.

The matter was adjourned sine die in 2017.

In 2019, the Board inquired about the status of the complaint, warning that failure to respond by a specified deadline would result in the complaint being deemed abandoned.

After receiving no indication from any named complainant that they intended to pursue the matter, the Board found the complaint abandoned and dismissed it.

The complainant was placed on an administrative suspension with pay pending an investigation into allegations of time theft.

The suspension letter advised he would not be eligible for overtime.

He filed a complaint regarding the loss of overtime pay.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the complaint on the basis that it was not filed within the mandatory 14-day timeline under O. Reg. 378/07.

The Board found that the complainant became aware of the circumstances giving rise to his complaint when he was initially suspended and told he was ineligible for overtime, not when the employer later confirmed he would not receive overtime pay.

As the notice was filed beyond the 14-day period, the Board lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the complaint.

The complainant, a retired Health Care Manager, filed a complaint regarding her entitlement to an enhanced severance payment under the Voluntary Exit Registry.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the complaint was not filed within the mandatory time limits set out in Regulation 378/07.

The Board determined that a February 7, 2018 conference call constituted the dispute resolution meeting under section 9(3) of the regulation, meaning the complaint filed on March 6, 2018 was premature.

The Board further held that the time limits in Regulation 378/07 are substantive, not procedural, and therefore cannot be waived under section 4(1) of the Statutory Powers and Procedures Act.

The complaint was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The complainant filed a grievance in 2012, which was adjourned pending the resolution of a similar matter.

Following the resolution of that matter, both the employer and the Board attempted to contact the complainant without success.

The complainant had left the public service and her contact information was no longer valid.

As there had been no contact from the complainant since 2012, the Board dismissed the complaint as abandoned.