Employment and Labour Law

The grievors, a group of nurse managers, filed a grievance alleging they were denied a salary review to which they were entitled and were treated arbitrarily regarding salary and benefit disparities, specifically wage compression compared to their subordinates.

The employer argued that the process for setting managerial compensation does not involve direct input from managers at the grievors' level and that no specific cyclical review was guaranteed by policy.

The Public Service Grievance Board found that the employer's policies did not entitle the grievors to a specific type or process of salary review, and that they had been included in the cyclical salary reviews applied to other managers.

The Board concluded there was no evidence of arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad faith treatment, and dismissed the grievance.

The grievors, acting Operational Managers, filed grievances regarding pay increases with the Public Service Grievance Board after the employer initially claimed the Grievance Settlement Board lacked jurisdiction.

The employer brought a motion to dismiss the PSGB grievances for lack of jurisdiction, arguing the grievors remained OPSEU members covered by their collective agreement while in temporary acting positions.

The Vice-Chair agreed, finding that Section 31 of Regulation 977 to the Public Service Act excludes OPSEU members from grieving at the PSGB.

The grievances were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The employer raised a preliminary objection to the jurisdiction of the Public Service Grievance Board to hear a grievance filed by nurse managers regarding salary and benefit disparities between their classification and the registered nurses who report to them.

The grievors sought a review of their wages, enhanced benefits, and a new mechanism for assessing managerial compensation.

The Board held that it lacks jurisdiction to set terms and conditions of employment, including compensation levels and compression ratios, as that is the exclusive function of the Civil Service Commission.

However, the Board assumed jurisdiction over the portion of the grievance alleging that the employer breached an established policy or promise by failing to conduct a cyclical salary review, and whether the employer acted arbitrarily or in bad faith in that regard.

The grievor, a member of the OPSEU bargaining unit in an acting management position, grieved the denial of a managerial posting.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the Public Service Grievance Board lacked jurisdiction because the grievor was a bargaining unit member.

The Board upheld the objection, finding that section 31(1) of Regulation 977 to the Public Service Act explicitly excludes persons within a collective bargaining unit from filing a grievance under that Part.

The grievance was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The grievor, a former intern, filed a grievance alleging that his termination notice was invalid under the Employment Standards Act because it was delivered by intergovernmental mail rather than personally or by registered mail.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the grievance for being filed outside the 14-day time limit under the Public Service Act.

The Board extended the time limits, finding the delay was short and caused no prejudice.

On the merits, the Board found a technical violation of the ESA's delivery requirements but declined to award damages, as the grievor received actual notice and suffered no prejudice.

The grievor brought a motion for the production of documents in a grievance regarding the calculation of his pay rate upon assignment to a superintendent position.

The employer opposed the production of certain documents, arguing they were not relevant and amounted to a fishing expedition.

The Public Service Grievance Board ordered the production of documents relating to the classification, pay rates, and incumbents of the superintendent positions, finding them arguably relevant to the grievor's claim of differential treatment.

The request for documents regarding the results of the competition was denied.

The grievor filed a grievance regarding a job competition for a non-bargaining unit position.

The employer raised a preliminary objection regarding the jurisdiction of the Public Service Grievance Board, arguing that the issues arose when the grievor was a bargaining unit member.

The Board agreed, finding that the grievance related to a process commenced when the grievor was excluded from recourse under the Public Service Act.

The grievance was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The grievor challenged an unsuccessful job competition for a temporary assignment.

At the hearing, the grievor moved to exclude the employer's advisor as a potential witness, which the Board denied.

The employer abandoned its preliminary objection to grievability and moved for an order for disclosure.

The Board ordered the grievor to provide full particulars of the allegations, including specific acts, dates, and individuals involved, to enable the employer to prepare its response.

The grievor filed multiple grievances alleging the Employer mishandled unfounded harassment allegations made against him by a co-worker.

The grievor argued the Employer breached the Workplace Discrimination and Harassment Prevention (WDHP) Guidelines by failing to act expeditiously, failing to disclose the specific allegations to him, and conducting a flawed investigation.

The Public Service Grievance Board found that the Employer breached the WDHP Directive by delaying action for over a year, failing to provide the grievor with detailed particulars of the accusations, and allowing the complainant to dictate who the investigator could interview.

The grievances were upheld, with the matter of remedy deferred to a newly appointed panel.

The grievor filed a classification grievance in 1992, which was referred to the Classification Rating Committee (CRC).

Before the CRC could hear the grievance, legislative amendments abolished the CRC and eliminated the right to grieve classification issues.

The grievor requested that the Public Service Grievance Board (PSGB) hear the grievance.

The PSGB held that it lacked jurisdiction, as it was never granted the authority to hear classification grievances, and the abolition of the CRC did not transfer such jurisdiction to the PSGB.

The Grievor, a Staff Psychiatrist, filed grievances alleging that the Employer breached his employment contract by reassigning him from Unit Director to a lower-rated position for health reasons, and by subsequently harassing him regarding sick leave and medical assessments.

The Public Service Grievance Board found that the Grievor's severe arthritic condition caused extensive absences, justifying the reassignment under s. 11(3) of Regulation 977 to ensure proper functioning of the unit.

The Board also found the Employer's actions regarding medical assessments and restricting the Grievor's access to office equipment while on sick leave were reasonable and justified.

The grievances were dismissed.

The grievors, operational managers at a detention centre, sought overtime compensation for all hours during a 35-day strike, including time spent at home resting.

They argued they were promised 'significant recognition' and believed managers at another institution were paid for the entire strike duration.

The Public Service Grievance Board dismissed the grievances, finding that the applicable Order-in-Council did not authorize overtime pay for time not worked in the institution, no clear promise of such payment was made, and evidence showed managers at the other institution were only paid for actual overtime hours worked.

The grievor, a former Cartography Supervisor, filed a grievance alleging he was underclassified and seeking retroactive pay increases equivalent to those awarded to bargaining unit cartographers.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the grievance as inarbitrable.

The Public Service Grievance Board granted the motion, finding that it lacked jurisdiction to hear classification grievances or claims based on bargaining unit awards absent allegations of bad faith or discrimination.

The Board also noted the grievance was untimely, as the grievor had known of the issues since 1989 and 1995 but did not grieve until 1997.

The grievance was dismissed.

The grievors, who worked during a 1996 strike, filed complaints claiming compensation for standby pay.

The employer objected to the board's jurisdiction, arguing that the grievors had signed release forms settling all claims for compensation arising from work performed during the strike, with the exception of pre-existing grievances based on a specific prior decision.

The board found that the release forms clearly barred the grievors' claims for standby pay, as they did not fall within the sole exception.

The employer's motion was granted and the grievances were dismissed.

The grievors, who were managers during the 1996 OPSEU strike, filed grievances 16 to 18 months after the strike ended, claiming they were entitled to time-and-a-half for overtime and standby pay.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the grievances for untimeliness under the Public Service Act.

The Public Service Grievance Board dismissed the grievances, finding that the grievors' belief that senior management was reviewing the issue did not justify such a significant delay in filing.

The grievor objected to the Employer's representative, a Staff Relations Officer, acting in the case on the basis that she had previously acted as an Investigator in the Independent Investigations Unit and had discussed his workplace discrimination and harassment complaint with him.

The grievor argued this created a conflict of interest and a denial of natural justice.

The Public Service Grievance Board dismissed the preliminary objection, finding no evidence that confidential information was imparted to the representative, but noted the issue could be revisited if evidence of confidential disclosure emerged during the hearing on the merits.

The grievor's employment was terminated and later resolved through Minutes of Settlement following his acquittal on criminal charges.

The grievor subsequently filed new grievances claiming expenses and overtime payments incurred during his suspension and termination.

The Public Service Grievance Board dismissed the claims, finding that the Minutes of Settlement contained a full and final release clause barring any new claims relating to the termination.

The Board held that the employer had not breached the settlement agreement and that the grievor was bound by its terms.

The grievors, operational managers on a compressed work week, sought retroactive compensation for statutory holidays falling on regular days off, claiming entitlement to the same retroactivity granted to bargaining unit employees.

The employer raised preliminary objections regarding timeliness and res judicata based on prior Board decisions.

The Public Service Grievance Board dismissed the grievances, finding they were filed beyond the 14-day limit under Regulation 977 of the Public Service Act without justifiable reason for delay.

Furthermore, the Board agreed with prior decisions that operational managers were not covered by the collective agreement and had no independent entitlement to the earlier retroactivity date.

The grievors, Schedule 6 managers, sought compensation for time spent on standby during the 1996 OPSEU strike.

They filed their grievances 18 months after the strike ended.

The Public Service Grievance Board found that Order-in-Council 2161/90 did not provide standby pay for Schedule 6 employees, and there was insufficient evidence of a clear promise by the employer to pay them.

The Board also held that the 18-month delay in filing the grievances was unjustified, despite the grievors' belief that they would eventually be compensated.

The grievances were dismissed on both the merits and timeliness.

The grievor, an Operational Manager, grieved his exclusion from a job competition for a Deputy Superintendent position.

He alleged that the employer's requirement of three months' experience in a similar position, combined with its refusal to rotate him through the position on an acting basis, was discriminatory and in bad faith.

The employer raised a preliminary objection regarding the Board's jurisdiction to review management's determination of job criteria.

The Public Service Grievance Board upheld the preliminary objection and dismissed the grievance, finding that the employer has the right to determine job qualifications and fill acting vacancies, and that its actions did not constitute bad faith or discrimination.