Employment and Labour Law

The complainant, a Sergeant at the Vanier Centre for Women, filed a grievance seeking a retroactive wage increase equal to that received by bargaining unit correctional officers.

The employer raised preliminary objections regarding timeliness and the absence of a prima facie case.

The Public Service Grievance Board found that the complaint was filed beyond the mandatory 14-day time limit and before the expiry of the dispute resolution period.

The Board also noted that it lacked jurisdiction to set wage rates or create terms of employment.

The complaint was dismissed.

The complainant failed to respond to a previous Board decision confirming any intention to proceed with the remaining aspect of his complaint.

Consequently, the Board considered the complaint abandoned and dismissed it.

The complainant alleged that the employer violated the Human Rights Code by denying her a merit increase.

Following the closure of a related lead case, the employer provided certain production to the complainant.

The Public Service Grievance Board issued an interim decision directing the self-represented complainant to provide specific particulars of her discrimination claim, including the prohibited grounds relied upon and the factual assertions supporting the allegation, before determining next steps.

The complainant alleged that the employer violated the Human Rights Code by denying her a merit increase.

The Public Service Grievance Board issued an interim decision directing the self-represented complainant to provide specific particulars regarding the alleged discrimination, including the prohibited grounds relied upon and the factual basis for the claim.

The Board held the matter in abeyance pending receipt of these particulars, after which it would determine next steps.

The complainant alleged that the employer violated the Human Rights Code by denying her a merit increase.

The Public Service Grievance Board issued an interim decision directing the self-represented complainant to provide specific particulars of the alleged discrimination, including the prohibited grounds relied upon and the factual basis for the claim, before determining next steps.

The complainant alleged that the employer violated the Human Rights Code by denying him a merit increase.

In this interim decision, the Public Service Grievance Board directed the self-represented complainant to provide particulars of the alleged discrimination, including the specific prohibited grounds relied upon and the factual assertions supporting the claim.

The complainant alleged that the employer violated the Human Rights Code by denying him a merit increase.

In this interim decision, the Public Service Grievance Board directed the self-represented complainant to provide specific particulars regarding the alleged discrimination, including the prohibited grounds relied upon and the factual assertions supporting the claim, before determining next steps.

The complainant failed to provide a necessary undertaking regarding material offered to be produced by the employer, despite prior Board directions.

The Public Service Grievance Board directed the self-represented complainant to advise by October 18, 2021, whether she intends to pursue the complaint.

The Board noted that failure to respond would result in the complaint being considered abandoned and dismissed.

The complainant failed to provide a necessary undertaking regarding material offered to be produced by the employer, despite previous Board directions.

The Board directed the complainant to advise by October 18, 2021, whether he intends to pursue the complaint.

If the complainant fails to respond, the complaint will be considered abandoned and dismissed.

The Complainant failed to provide a necessary undertaking regarding material offered to be produced by the Employer, despite previous Board directions.

The Board directed the Complainant to advise whether he intends to pursue the complaint by a specified date, failing which the complaint will be considered abandoned and dismissed.

The complainant, a Sergeant at the Toronto South Detention Centre, filed a complaint alleging workplace harassment, discrimination, and reprisals by co-workers and management.

The employer brought a preliminary objection to dismiss the complaint.

The Public Service Grievance Board dismissed the complaint, finding that it did not make out a prima facie case for a reprisal under the Public Service of Ontario Act because the complainant did not allege any protected political activity or protected disclosure of wrongdoing.

Furthermore, to the extent the complaint concerned working conditions, it was dismissed for failing to adhere to the mandatory statutory timelines set out in Ontario Regulation 378/07, which the Board has no jurisdiction to extend.

Two correctional sergeants grieved the termination of their employment following the death of an inmate in custody.

The inmate, who was suffering a mental health crisis, died after a use of force incident where he was left in a prone position while restrained.

The Employer alleged the complainants failed to properly supervise staff and breached policies regarding the use of restraints and spit hoods.

The Grievance Board found that while both complainants made errors in judgment and breached certain policies, their actions were not premeditated and reflected a failure in performance rather than intentional misconduct.

The Board concluded that termination was an excessive penalty for both employees, reinstating one without compensation and remitting the other's penalty to the parties.

The complainant, employed in correctional services, filed a complaint alleging a violation of the Human Rights Code.

Following a prior decision determining the Board's jurisdiction, the Board directed the employer to advise whether it objects to providing certain production to the complainant, which had been previously provided in a related, now-closed complaint.

The Complainant, employed in correctional services, filed a complaint alleging a violation of the Human Rights Code.

The Board previously determined the complaint could proceed on this basis.

Noting that the Employer had provided certain production in a related, now-closed complaint, the Board issued an interim decision directing the Employer to advise whether it objects to providing the same production to the Complainant in this matter.

The Complainant, employed in correctional services, filed a complaint alleging a violation of the Human Rights Code.

Following the closure of a related lead case, the Public Service Grievance Board issued an interim decision directing the Employer to advise whether it objects to providing the same production to the Complainant as was provided in the lead case.

The Complainant, employed in correctional services, filed a complaint alleging a violation of the Human Rights Code.

Following a prior decision determining the Board's jurisdiction, the Board directed the Employer to advise whether it objects to providing certain document production to the Complainant, which had been previously provided in a related consolidated complaint.

The complainant, employed in correctional services, filed a complaint alleging a violation of the Human Rights Code.

Following a prior decision determining the Board's jurisdiction, the Board directed the employer to advise whether it objects to providing certain production to the complainant, which had been provided in a related, now-closed complaint.

The Complainant, an employee in correctional services, filed a complaint alleging a violation of the Human Rights Code.

Following a preliminary decision that the complaint could proceed, the Board directed the Employer to advise whether it objected to providing the Complainant with the same production it had provided in a related, now-closed complaint.

The complainant filed a grievance alleging the employer acted irresponsibly regarding her 2019 performance rating and sought a compensation increase.

The Public Service Grievance Board dismissed the complaint without a hearing under Rule 11, finding it lacked jurisdiction.

Under section 4(2) of O. Reg. 378/07, the Board is expressly precluded from entertaining complaints concerning the evaluation of a public servant's performance or the compensation provided or denied as a result.

The Complainant, a Coordinator of Maintenance Services at a youth justice facility, filed a grievance alleging he was unfairly denied temporary COVID-19 pandemic pay that was provided to bargaining unit staff and certain other managers.

The Employer brought a preliminary objection that the complaint did not make out a prima facie case because the Complainant could not point to an existing term or condition of employment that was breached.

The Public Service Grievance Board agreed, finding that the pandemic pay explicitly excluded management and the Institutional COVID-19 Response Pay was limited to Youth Services Managers.

As the Board lacks jurisdiction to create new terms of employment, the complaint was dismissed.