Employment and Labour Law

The applicant filed a complaint with the Public Service Grievance Board.

The parties agreed to a decision without precedent or prejudice and without providing reasons.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the employer's preliminary motion and granted the grievance, awarding the remedy sought by the grievor in oral submissions.

The complainant argued that the employer should pay employees who attend Public Service Grievance Board hearings on behalf of a complainant, either as representatives, advisors, or witnesses not under subpoena, in the same manner as employees acting for the employer.

The Board found that the complainant was entitled to choose an option under section 44 of the Compensation Directive because he had received a summons.

However, the Board rejected the broader argument, holding that parties are primarily responsible for their own costs and there is no obligation on the employer to remunerate employees participating on behalf of a complainant beyond what is expressly provided in the Directive.

The applicant brought a motion alleging that the employer failed to comply with a settlement agreement and that the agreement contained illegal elements by contracting out of statutory entitlements under the Employment Standards Act.

The applicant sought statutory severance pay, pay in lieu of notice, and damages.

The Public Service Grievance Board found the settlement agreement to be clear, unambiguous, and enforceable.

The Board held that the applicant had released the employer from all claims and that there was no illegality in the agreement.

The motion was dismissed.

The complainant, a supervisor, grieved that a salary compression between himself and his subordinates violated his working conditions.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the grievance as not arbitrable, arguing the board lacked jurisdiction to rectify salary compression absent an allegation of a specific policy breach, discrimination, or bad faith.

The Public Service Grievance Board found that the Public Service Act gives the Civil Service Commission the exclusive right to set salary ranges for managers, and the temporary compression policy in effect did not require ministries to pay employees in a salary compression.

As there was no allegation of discrimination, arbitrariness, or bad faith, the board concluded it had no jurisdiction to hear the case on the merits and dismissed the grievance.

The complainant, an unrepresented employee, requested an adjournment of his scheduled hearing dates for medical reasons.

The employer opposed the adjournment and brought a motion to dismiss the complaints due to the complainant's failure to attend and lack of medical evidence.

The Board suspended its decision on the motion and ordered the complainant to provide medical evidence supporting his inability to attend.

The complainant subsequently provided a doctor's letter confirming his medical condition prevented his attendance.

The Board granted the adjournment and denied the employer's motion to dismiss, finding that the complainant had satisfied the requirements of the Board's order and that granting the adjournment was fair in the circumstances.

The complainant alleged dismissal without just cause and breach of a prior memorandum of settlement.

The employer brought a motion to exclude evidence of events that occurred prior to the settlement date.

The Public Service Grievance Board granted the employer's motion, holding that the settlement resolved all complaints up to its date and there was no compelling reason to pierce the sanctity of the agreement.

The complainant was permitted to testify to her state of mind after the settlement without adducing prior evidence.

The employer brought a motion for the production of the complainant's medical documents, including clinical notes from her general practitioner, her psychiatrist's complete file, and decoded OHIP forms.

The complainant, who alleged wrongful dismissal after being terminated for attending school while on short-term sick leave, opposed the motion.

The Board granted the motion in part, ordering the production of the psychiatrist's notes and records, as the complainant had put her mental health at issue by claiming her school attendance was part of a recommended treatment plan.

However, the Board denied the request for the general practitioner's records and OHIP forms, finding them overly broad and unnecessary at this stage.

The Applicant alleged that the employer breached a Memorandum of Settlement by placing him on a tracking protocol for respondents in substantiated incidents under the Workplace Discrimination and Harassment Policy (WDHP).

The Applicant argued this amounted to a disciplinary measure incompatible with the settlement.

The employer maintained it was complying with its obligations under an agreement with OPSEU and that the tracking protocol was not disciplinary.

The Public Service Grievance Board found that the settlement did not reference the tracking protocol and that placement on the protocol was not a disciplinary measure.

The application for a declaration of breach was dismissed.

The complainant filed a grievance after receiving a three-day suspension.

The Public Service Grievance Board considered the submissions and material, and granted the grievance.

Remedial issues were remitted to the parties, with the Board remaining seized if they are unable to resolve them.

The grievor, an Operational Manager at a jail, was discharged after being charged with criminal harassment for off-duty conduct involving observing a former partner's house with binoculars.

He was also discharged for failing to fully cooperate with an internal investigation under s. 22 of the Ministry of Correctional Services Act, having refused to answer certain questions on the advice of counsel.

The grievor was later acquitted of the criminal charges.

The Board found that the grievor did not have a Charter right to remain silent during the administrative investigation, but his limited participation did not amount to a disciplinable failure to cooperate under the circumstances.

While the off-duty conduct warranted some discipline due to its impact on the employer's reputation, discharge was excessive given the acquittal, his long service, and the lack of proven intimidatory intent.

The Board substituted a 15-day suspension and ordered reinstatement with compensation from the date of acquittal.

The grievor alleged that the employer breached minutes of settlement by returning him to his home position after a six-month developmental opportunity as a Labour Relations Specialist.

The grievor argued that he should not have been returned to his home position without proof of poor performance.

The Public Service Grievance Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the clear language of the settlement agreement only entitled the grievor to a six-month developmental opportunity, after which employees normally return to their home positions.

The employer had fulfilled its obligations under the agreement.

The grievor filed a grievance alleging a breach of the employer's policies regarding pay on assignment and pay for performance.

The board previously dismissed the grievance for lack of jurisdiction.

The grievor requested the board to reconsider the pay on assignment portion.

The board held that it was functus officio and lacked the power to reconsider its previous decision.

Furthermore, based on a recent board decision on the same issue, the grievance lacked merit.

The grievance was dismissed.

The grievors, Operational Managers, alleged the employer breached a 2002 memorandum of settlement by requiring them to participate in a selection process to reduce the number of managers from 26 to 13 following a decision not to complete the expansion of a facility.

The memorandum provided that staffing imbalances created by the settlement would not be resolved through a competition process.

The Board found that the staffing imbalance was not created by the 2002 settlement, but rather by the 2005 decision not to finish the expansion.

Therefore, the employer did not violate the memorandum by using a selection process to downsize.

The grievances were dismissed.

The grievors, Operational Managers, alleged the employer breached a 2002 memorandum of settlement by requiring them to compete for their positions during a 2005 downsizing.

The settlement prohibited resolving staffing imbalances created by the settlement through a competition process.

The Board found that the staffing imbalance was not created by the 2002 settlement, but rather by a 2005 government decision not to complete the expansion of the facility.

Therefore, the employer did not violate the settlement by using a selection process to downsize.

The grievances were dismissed.

The grievors, Labour Relations Officers, alleged they were wrongly denied promotions due to systemic discrimination and racial bias.

At the outset of the hearing, the employer conceded that the Public Service Grievance Board has jurisdiction to hear grievances alleging systemic discrimination and to order appropriate remedies.

The Vice-Chair declared that the Board has such jurisdiction and issued orders for the disclosure of the competition file and other documents to be relied upon at the hearing.

The grievor withdrew his grievance at the conclusion of mediation.

The Public Service Grievance Board recorded the withdrawal and terminated the proceeding without setting a hearing date.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the employee's grievance alleging workplace harassment and a poisoned work environment.

The employer argued the grievance was untimely, moot, and outside the Board's jurisdiction.

The Board dismissed the portions of the grievance relating to incidents from 2001 to 2003 due to excessive delay.

The Board also found that complaints regarding performance evaluations and related compensation were statutorily excluded from its jurisdiction.

However, the Board held that the allegation concerning the employee's forced return to her home position for health reasons in 2004 was timely, within jurisdiction, and not moot, allowing that specific issue to proceed to a hearing.

The grievor filed a grievance seven months after receiving a 20-day disciplinary suspension.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the grievance as untimely under the Public Service Act.

The grievor argued the delay was justified because she had pursued a judicial review of the discipline, which was ultimately dismissed by the Divisional Court.

The Board applied the Becker Milk factors and found no compelling reason to extend the time limits, noting the grievor was aware of her right to grieve but chose to pursue judicial review instead.

The grievance was dismissed.

The grievor failed to appear at the scheduled grievance hearing before the Public Service Grievance Board.

The Board sent a letter to the grievor directing him to provide adequate cause for his absence by a specified date, warning that failure to respond would result in dismissal.

The grievor did not respond.

Pursuant to Rule 7 of the Board's Rules, the grievance was dismissed for failure to appear.

The employer raised a preliminary objection to the Board's jurisdiction to hear a grievance from management employees regarding changes to their benefit plan, specifically the reduction in orthopaedic shoes and the rolling of the Employment Insurance premium refund into benefits.

The Board dismissed the grievance, finding no prima facie case that a term or condition of employment had been violated.

The Board held that comparisons to bargaining unit benefits could not form the basis of a manager's grievance, and the grievors failed to establish a legal entitlement to the previous benefit levels or a mandatory consultation process under the Employment Insurance Act.