Jordanna Lewis

The employer brought preliminary objections seeking to dismiss the grievance for failing to disclose a prima facie case and arguing the union sought to improperly expand the scope of the grievance.

The arbitrator found that the union's allegations regarding a single incident of sexual harassment and the employer's subsequent failure to conduct an appropriate investigation or communicate its results established a prima facie case.

On the issue of scope, the arbitrator held that while the union could not argue a freestanding breach of Article 22.10.3.2 regarding time limits, it could raise arguments about the appropriateness of the investigation and communication of results, as these were inherent in the original grievance citing health and safety and human rights provisions.

The preliminary objections were dismissed in part and the matter was directed to proceed on the merits.

The employer brought a motion to dismiss eight grievances alleging racial and family status discrimination and anti-union animus, arguing the particulars failed to establish a prima facie case.

The arbitrator applied the test for a prima facie case of discrimination, finding that relatively little affirmative evidence is required at this stage.

The arbitrator concluded that the particulars for seven of the grievances were capable of supporting the alleged violations if proven true.

One grievance relating to general workload issues was dismissed as it did not fit the union's theory of the case.

The employer's alternative motion to strike certain particulars was dismissed as premature.

The complainant, a Staff Sergeant, alleged that the Employer unfairly denied him developmental and promotional opportunities for discriminatory reasons, and failed to address workplace bullying and harassment.

The Public Service Grievance Board found that the Employer provided a credible, non-discriminatory explanation for not awarding the complainant a permanent position, as he lacked the required experience.

The Board also found that the Employer took reasonable steps to address workplace friction and that the decision to return the complainant to his home position at the end of a temporary assignment was based on operational needs and the natural conclusion of the assignment.

The complaint was dismissed.

The Employer requested an adjournment of a scheduled hearing date six days prior to the hearing, citing unavailability without providing an explanation.

The Complainant opposed the request.

The Public Service Grievance Board denied the adjournment, noting that the date had been agreed upon at a case conference and the Employer failed to provide any explanation for the late request or the change in availability.

The employer brought a motion for summary dismissal of ten individual grievances alleging violations of health and safety, harassment, and discrimination related to the employer's return-to-office scheduling during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The union alleged that the employer failed to accommodate the grievor's request to alter her in-office days to avoid public transit and protect her vulnerable spouse from potential COVID-19 exposure, claiming discrimination based on marital status.

The arbitrator held that the desire to protect a spouse from infection, while understandable, does not constitute an obligation flowing from marital status that triggers the duty to accommodate.

Finding that the union's particulars, even if accepted as true, failed to establish a prima facie case for any of the alleged violations, the arbitrator granted the employer's motion and dismissed all ten grievances.

At a hearing convened for two grievances relating to job competitions and alleged discrimination, the parties agreed to use the day for mediation.

However, mediation was unlikely to be productive due to a lack of meaningful exchange of particulars or documents.

The Arbitrator ordered both parties to provide full written particulars of material facts and produce relevant documents according to a set timetable, and directed the employer to provide notice of any preliminary motions or objections.

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 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 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 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 Employer requested an order requiring the Union to provide written particulars of the allegations advanced in the grievances, specifically the 'who, what, when, and where' of each allegation.

The arbitrator granted the request, directing the Union to provide detailed particulars, including what was alleged to have been done, when, where, by what means, and by whom, and identifying any individuals whose actions were attributed to an organization.

The hearing date was adjourned on consent.

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 filed a grievance contesting the employer's decision to deny him a leave of absence to attend a job interview.

The employer raised preliminary objections, arguing the complaint breached the mandatory process and timelines under Regulation 378/07 of the Public Service of Ontario Act, 2006.

The Public Service Grievance Board found that the complaint was filed prematurely, before the expiry of the mandatory 30-day dispute resolution period set out in section 9(5) of the Regulation.

As the Board lacks jurisdiction to amend mandatory time limits, the complaint was dismissed.