Employment and Labour Law

The complainant, a manager in Corrections, filed a complaint alleging her 2019-2020 performance rating was maliciously changed by the Employer, resulting in lost wages.

The Public Service Grievance Board dismissed the complaint without a hearing under Rule 11.

The Board held it lacked jurisdiction because O. Reg. 378/07 expressly precludes complaints about the evaluation of a public servant's performance or the resulting compensation.

The complainant, a manager in Corrections, filed a complaint alleging that his 2019-2020 performance rating was changed with malice by the Employer, and sought compensation for lost wages.

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 sub-paragraphs 4 and 5 of section 4(2) of Ontario Regulation 378/07 expressly exclude matters relating to the evaluation of a public servant's performance and associated compensation from the Board's purview.

The complainant, a manager in Corrections, filed a complaint seeking a higher performance rating and associated pay increase.

The Employer requested the complaint be dismissed without a hearing under Rule 11, arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction.

The Board found that paragraphs 4 and 5 of section 4(2) of Ontario Regulation 378/07 expressly exclude matters relating to performance evaluations and resulting compensation from its purview.

The complaint was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The complainant filed a grievance regarding his 2018-2019 performance rating, alleging it was a reprisal for raising concerns about workplace bullying and harassment.

The employer raised preliminary objections regarding jurisdiction and timeliness.

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

The Board found that performance evaluations are explicitly excluded from its jurisdiction by regulation.

Furthermore, the complainant failed to meet the mandatory time limits for filing his notice of proposal and his complaint.

Finally, the Board held that the complainant did not make out a prima facie case of reprisal, as his complaints to management did not constitute a disclosure of wrongdoing under Part VI of the Public Service of Ontario Act.

The complainant, an Operational Manager, filed a grievance alleging that the employer breached his terms and conditions of employment by failing to offer him a secondary overtime shift after an initial overtime shift went unfilled.

The employer argued that it was within its rights to leave the shift unfilled when no one responded to the initial call.

The Public Service Grievance Board dismissed the complaint, finding no evidence that the employer was required to fill the shift with overtime or that anyone else worked the shift.

The Board also dismissed the complainant's allegations regarding non-compliance with a 2009 decision, finding them untimely and beyond the scope of the current complaint.

Ten managers filed complaints challenging the employer's decision to downgrade their performance ratings, which resulted in the denial of merit pay.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the Public Service Grievance Board lacked jurisdiction to hear the complaints under section 4(2) of Ontario Regulation 378/07, which excludes complaints about performance evaluations and resulting compensation.

The Board upheld the preliminary objection, finding that the complaints fundamentally concerned pay for performance and were excluded from its jurisdiction, even where the employer's actions were alleged to be arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith.

The complaints were dismissed, except for the portions alleging violations of the Human Rights Code, which the Board retained jurisdiction to consider.

The complainant filed a complaint regarding the assignment of his pay for performance rating.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the Public Service Grievance Board lacked jurisdiction to hear the complaint under Ontario Regulation 378/07, which excludes matters relating to performance evaluation and resulting compensation.

After providing the complainant an opportunity to make written submissions, which were not received, the Board dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction.

The complainant, an Operational Manager, alleged she was improperly paid compared to male co-workers and sought a retroactive pay increase.

The employer raised preliminary objections that the complaint did not disclose a violation of a term of employment and was filed outside the statutory timelines.

The Public Service Grievance Board found that the complainant was seeking to create a new term of employment rather than enforce an existing one, and that the complaint was filed 18 months after her promotion, well beyond the 14-day statutory limit.

The complaint was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

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 raised a preliminary objection to the complainant's complaint regarding her dismissal for cause, arguing it was filed prematurely under Regulation 378/07 of the Public Service of Ontario Act.

The employer contended the 30-day dispute resolution period had not expired when the complaint was filed.

The Board applied the modern principle of statutory interpretation and found that the dispute resolution period ended on the date the complainant reasonably understood based on the employer's communications.

The Board concluded the complaint was filed in a timely manner and dismissed the employer's preliminary objection.

The complainant filed a complaint contesting an 8-hour suspension.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the complaint was filed outside the mandatory 14-day time limit under Regulation 378/07.

The central issue was whether the dispute resolution period expired when the employer emailed its decision ('given') or when the complainant returned to work and read it ('received').

Applying the modern principle of statutory interpretation, the Board held that notice was 'given' when it was sent to and received in the complainant's inbox, making the complaint two days late.

The complaint was dismissed as untimely.

The complainant requested an adjournment of a scheduled mediation due to Covid-19 restrictions preventing an in-person process, and opposed proceeding by written submissions.

The employer agreed to adjourn the mediation but requested that its preliminary objection regarding the timeliness of the complaint be addressed via written submissions.

The Vice Chair adjourned the mediation and directed the parties to exchange written statements of fact regarding the timeliness issue to determine the appropriate next steps.

The complainants filed grievances challenging the employer's alteration of their performance ratings and associated compensation.

The employer raised a preliminary objection asserting that the Public Service Grievance Board lacks jurisdiction to entertain the complaints pursuant to section 4(2) of Ontario Regulation 378/07.

Due to COVID-19 restrictions preventing in-person hearings, the Board issued an interim decision establishing a timetable for the parties to file written submissions regarding the jurisdictional objection.

The complainants, senior managers in Aviation Services, filed grievances alleging that the employer improperly removed a salary allowance they had been receiving since 2014.

The employer argued that it was within its rights to issue a directive incorporating the allowances into base salaries under a new compensation plan.

The Public Service Grievance Board found that the salary allowance was a specific term and condition of the complainants' individual employment contracts.

The employer's unilateral removal of the allowance without consent constituted a breach of those terms and conditions.

The matter was remitted to the parties to determine an appropriate remedy.

The employer raised a preliminary objection arguing that the Public Service Grievance Board lacked jurisdiction to hear complaints from 13 senior managers regarding the removal of their salary allowances.

The employer contended the complaints were disguised classification grievances, which are excluded from the Board's jurisdiction under Regulation 378/07.

The Board dismissed the objection, finding that the complainants were disputing the removal of a specific aspect of their remuneration, not seeking to be assigned to a different classification.

The complaints will proceed to be heard on their merits.

The complainant requested reconsideration of a previous Board decision dismissing her complaint of reprisal for disclosing wrongdoing.

The complainant argued that her application to the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario constituted a disclosure of wrongdoing.

The Board dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding that the HRTO application could have been raised at the original hearing.

The Board also dismissed the complainant's second complaint regarding her termination, finding that she failed to establish a prima facie case of reprisal and that the complaint was filed outside the mandatory timelines in the Regulation.

The complainant, an Operational Manager, brought a motion for the production of documents related to a 2017 job competition.

He alleged that he was unfairly denied developmental and promotional opportunities for discriminatory reasons and was the target of workplace harassment.

The Public Service Grievance Board granted the motion in part, ordering the employer to produce the final scores, names, and races of the successful candidates, as they were arguably relevant to the allegations of differential treatment.

However, the Board dismissed the request for scoring sheets and notes, finding them not arguably relevant since the complainant did not challenge the competition scores themselves.

The complainant challenged the employer's refusal to grant his request to exit the Ontario Public Service with enhanced severance benefits under the Voluntary Exit Program (VEP).

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction, arguing the VEP was not an existing term or condition of employment.

The Public Service Grievance Board agreed, finding that the VEP announcement was a pre-contractual representation and did not become a binding term of employment until an application was approved.

The Board concluded it lacked jurisdiction to review the fairness of the decision-making process or to create new terms of employment, and dismissed the complaint.

The complainant filed a complaint alleging workplace bullying, harassment, and failure to accommodate.

The employer raised preliminary objections arguing that the complaint was filed outside the mandatory time limits set out in O. Reg. 378/07 under the Public Service of Ontario Act.

The Board found that the complainant failed to file her notice to the deputy minister within 14 days of becoming aware of the alleged breach, and failed to file her complaint with the Board within 14 days after the expiry of the dispute resolution period.

As the timelines are mandatory and the Board has no jurisdiction to relieve against them, the complaint was dismissed.

The complainant, an Operational Manager at a correctional centre, required accommodation for family responsibilities, specifically needing to leave work by 17:00.

The employer accommodated this by modifying her regular 06:00-18:00 shifts to 05:00-17:00.

However, for overtime shifts, the employer allowed her to leave at 17:00 but refused to let her start at 05:00, resulting in 11 hours of overtime pay instead of 12.

The complainant argued this was a failure to accommodate.

The Public Service Grievance Board dismissed the complaint, finding the employer's accommodation reasonable.

The duty to accommodate does not require an employer to create work or pay for work it does not need, such as an extra manager between 05:00 and 06:00.