Employment and Labour Law

The complainant, a sergeant, filed a grievance alleging unfair and inequitable hiring practices and racial discrimination following the appointment of an acting Institutional Training Manager without an internal posting or Expression of Interest.

The employer raised preliminary objections, arguing the complaint failed to disclose a prima facie case of discrimination or a breach of a term or condition of employment.

The Public Service Grievance Board dismissed the claims of racial discrimination and general flaws in the testing procedures for lack of a prima facie case.

However, the Board found that the allegation regarding the failure to post the acting position or solicit an Expression of Interest raised an arbitrable issue under the employer's recruitment policies, and directed a hearing on the merits for that specific issue.

The complainant, a Health Care Manager in a correctional institution, filed a complaint claiming temporary pandemic pay.

The complaint was held in abeyance pending the outcome of a representative complaint, which was ultimately dismissed.

The Board directed the complainant to provide submissions on how she intended to proceed in light of the representative decision, warning that failure to respond could result in dismissal without a hearing.

The complainant failed to respond, and the complaint was dismissed.

The complainant, a Health Care Manager in a correctional institution, filed a complaint seeking temporary pandemic pay.

The complaint was held in abeyance pending the outcome of a representative complaint, which was ultimately dismissed because the Board lacked authority to introduce a term of employment not existing in the contract.

The Board directed the complainant to provide submissions on how she intended to proceed in light of that decision.

Having received no response, the Board dismissed the complaint.

The complainant, a Health Care Manager in a correctional institution, filed a complaint seeking temporary pandemic pay.

The complaint was held in abeyance pending the outcome of a representative complaint, which was ultimately dismissed because the Board lacked authority to introduce a term of employment not already existing in the contract.

The Board directed the complainant to provide submissions on how they intended to proceed in light of that decision.

The complainant failed to respond to the direction.

Consequently, the Board dismissed the complaint without a hearing.

The complainant, a Health Care Manager in a correctional institution, filed a complaint claiming temporary pandemic pay.

The complaint was held in abeyance pending the outcome of a representative complaint, which was ultimately dismissed.

The Board directed the complainant to provide submissions on how she intended to proceed in light of the representative decision.

The complainant failed to respond to the direction.

Consequently, the Board dismissed the complaint without a hearing.

The complainant, a Health Care Manager in a correctional institution, filed a complaint seeking temporary pandemic pay.

The complaint was held in abeyance pending a representative complaint, which was ultimately dismissed.

The Board directed the complainant to provide submissions on how she intended to proceed in light of the representative decision.

The complainant failed to respond to the direction.

Consequently, the Board dismissed the complaint without a hearing.

The complainant, a Health Care Manager, filed a complaint seeking temporary pandemic pay.

The complaint was held in abeyance pending the outcome of a representative complaint, which was ultimately dismissed because the Board lacked authority to create a new term of employment.

The Board directed the complainant to provide submissions on how she intended to proceed in light of that decision.

The complainant failed to respond to the direction.

Consequently, the Board dismissed the complaint without a hearing.

The complainant, a Health Care Manager in a correctional institution, filed a complaint seeking temporary pandemic pay.

The complaint was held in abeyance pending the outcome of a representative complaint, which was ultimately dismissed because the Board lacked authority to introduce a term or condition of employment that did not already exist.

The Board directed the complainant to provide submissions on how she intended to proceed in light of that decision.

Having received no response, the Board dismissed the complaint.

The complainant, a Health Care Manager in a correctional institution, filed a complaint seeking temporary pandemic pay.

The complaint was held in abeyance pending the outcome of a representative complaint, which was ultimately dismissed.

The Board directed the complainant to provide submissions on how she intended to proceed in light of the representative decision.

The complainant failed to respond to the Board's direction.

Consequently, the Board dismissed the complaint without a hearing.

The complainant, an Operational Manager at a detention centre, grieved a three-day suspension imposed for damaging a computer monitor in a fit of anger.

The complainant argued the discipline was unwarranted because he was suffering from undiagnosed PTSD at the time, which mitigated his conduct, and that he was denied procedural fairness.

The Public Service Grievance Board dismissed the complaint, finding no denial of procedural fairness.

Applying arbitral jurisprudence, the Board held that while the complainant was later diagnosed with PTSD, there was insufficient medical evidence establishing a causal nexus between the diagnosis and the specific act of workplace misconduct to excuse the behaviour.

The complainant, a Unit Sergeant, was suspended for seven days and filed a notice of proposal to complain two days after the 14-day limitation period prescribed by O. Reg. 378/07.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the Board lacked jurisdiction due to the late filing.

The Board dismissed the preliminary objection, finding that the mandatory time limits were suspended by O. Reg. 73/20 under the Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Board exercised its discretion to extend the time limit, noting the lack of prejudice to the employer and the objective of expeditious resolution.

The complainant, a Health Care Manager at a correctional facility, filed a grievance claiming entitlement to temporary pandemic pay.

The Province had announced pandemic pay for eligible frontline workers, but explicitly excluded management personnel under O. Reg. 241/20.

The employer had also provided a separate pandemic pay measure for Sergeants and Staff Sergeants, which did not extend to Health Care Managers.

The Public Service Grievance Board dismissed the complaint, finding it had no jurisdiction to create a new term or condition of employment, as the complainant was a manager and thus excluded from the pandemic pay regulation and the specific policy for Sergeants.

The complainant filed a grievance alleging that a competition for temporary manager positions was fundamentally flawed and that she had been subjected to sexual harassment.

The sexual harassment allegation was conceded as untimely.

Relying on an external investigation report, the Board found several flaws in the competition process, including inconsistent interview panels, unposted requirements, and disproportionate weight placed on interview performance.

However, because the complainant acknowledged she performed poorly in the interview relative to others and would not have been the successful candidate regardless, the Board declined to order the competition re-run and terminated the proceedings.

The complainant, a Sergeant at a detention centre, filed a complaint alleging the employer violated staffing policies by cancelling her scheduled statutory holiday shift and failing to recall her for an overtime shift.

The employer raised a preliminary objection to the Board's jurisdiction, arguing the complainant failed to establish a prima facie case.

The Board upheld the preliminary objection, finding that as a managerial employee, the complainant's terms of employment were governed by the Management Compensation Directive, which did not entitle her to work statutory holidays or guarantee overtime assignments.

The complaint was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The complainants challenged the Employer's refusal to grant their requests for enhanced severance benefits under the Voluntary Exit Program (VEP).

The Employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the complaints, arguing the Public Service Grievance Board lacked jurisdiction because the VEP did not form a term or condition of employment until an application was approved.

Relying on a previous decision involving the same program, the Board agreed that the complaints did not allege a violation of an existing term or condition of employment.

The preliminary motion was allowed and the complaints were dismissed.

The complainant, a Sergeant and operational manager at a detention centre, filed a complaint alleging the employer violated the Provincial Overtime Protocol by failing to schedule him for an overtime shift.

The employer raised a preliminary objection to the Board's jurisdiction, arguing that the Protocol does not apply to managerial employees, whose terms of employment are governed by the Management Compensation Directive.

The Board sustained the preliminary objection and dismissed the complaint, finding it had no jurisdiction to alter the Directive or create new terms of employment where no existing contractual right to the overtime assignment existed.

The self-represented complainant brought a motion requesting that the Vice-Chair recuse himself from the arbitration phase of a med-arb proceeding, alleging a reasonable apprehension of bias based on the Vice-Chair's conduct during the mediation phase and a subsequent case management call.

The complainant also requested permission to record the proceedings and an order that his future legal costs be paid by the employer.

The Public Service Grievance Board dismissed the recusal motion, finding that a reasonable person would understand that a mediator's assessment of case strengths and procedural rulings do not indicate prejudgment.

The Board also denied the request to record the proceedings and deferred the issue of costs to the final decision on the merits.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the complainant's grievance, arguing it was untimely and failed to disclose a prima facie case of a breach of employment conditions or discrimination.

The complainant, a Sergeant, alleged he was denied a permanent Staff Sergeant position despite receiving the highest score in a 2017 competition, and that he was subjected to workplace harassment and a discriminatory return to his home position.

The Board found the complaint was timely, as the time limit only began when the complainant learned he had the highest score in the competition.

The Board also found the allegations established a prima facie case of discrimination and a breach of working conditions.

The employer's motion to dismiss was dismissed.

The complainant, a sergeant at the Ottawa Carleton Detention Centre, filed a grievance alleging systemic discrimination because sergeants did not receive meal allowances for extended shifts or shift premiums for overtime, unlike correctional officers.

The employer raised preliminary objections regarding timeliness, failure to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, and failure to make out a case under Rule 11.

The Public Service Grievance Board upheld the preliminary objections, finding the complaint was filed outside the mandatory 14-day time limit, employee classification is not a protected ground under the Human Rights Code, and the complaint could not succeed even if all alleged facts were true.

The complaint was dismissed.

The complainant, a retired manager, filed a complaint alleging his performance rating was arbitrarily and discriminatorily lowered, denying him a pay increase.

The Employer raised preliminary objections to the Board's jurisdiction.

The Board dismissed the complaint without a hearing under Rule 11, finding it lacked jurisdiction on three grounds: the Regulation expressly excludes complaints about performance evaluations and resulting compensation; the complainant was retired and no longer a public servant when he filed the complaint; and the complaint was filed well beyond the mandatory 14-day time limit.