Liane Brossard

The Applicants, a group of Review Officers, challenged their job class placement under the employer's pay equity plan.

During a preliminary motion brought by the Respondent, evidence revealed that the Review Officers were treated as being in the ALR 19 job class for most of the pay equity process, despite being posted in the ALR 20 job class.

The Tribunal found the preliminary motion ill-founded based on this new evidence and ordered both parties to file new pleadings to properly address the issues revealed.

The grievors, Group Managers (AM20) in the Ministry of Finance, filed a grievance alleging that the employer's reorganization of their duties and the creation of a new AM21 position constituted bad faith and a violation of their working conditions.

The reorganization was implemented to address salary compression issues arising from a new collective agreement for senior auditors.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the grievance was a classification matter outside the jurisdiction of the Public Service Grievance Board.

The Board heard evidence and concluded that while the reorganization may have been a poor administrative decision, there was no clear evidence of bad faith, discrimination, arbitrariness, or a breach of the Public Service Act.

Consequently, the Board declined jurisdiction and dismissed the grievance.

In a supplementary decision to determine compensation following a finding that the employer failed to assign the grievor to an available position, the parties disputed the calculation of the grievor's mitigation income.

The grievor had started a consulting business that generated gross revenue but incurred greater expenses, resulting in a net loss.

The employer argued that gross revenue should be deducted from damages and challenged the reasonableness of the business expenses and the decision to continue the business for three years.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that it was not unreasonable to continue the business.

The Board allowed the home office and secretarial expenses, reduced the computer and mileage expenses, and disallowed promotional expenses related to sponsoring a hockey team.

The employer was directed to recalculate the allowable expenses and compensate the grievor accordingly.

The employer requested a hearing alleging the grievor failed to comply with Minutes of Settlement by not withdrawing a human rights complaint.

The employer sought particulars and disclosure of the grievor's medical records.

The parties disagreed on the process for determining the relevance of the medical documents.

The Vice-Chair deferred ruling on the disclosure process until the grievor and union provided full particulars regarding the reasons for non-compliance, as relevance could not be determined without knowing the parties' positions.

In a supplementary decision regarding a grievance arbitration award, the parties disputed the calculation of interest on back wages.

The employer had issued a cheque for the award but marked it as full and final payment.

The grievor refused to cash it until the employer provided assurance that cashing it would not prejudice his right to claim additional compensation.

The grievor received this assurance on January 12, 1999, but still delayed cashing the cheque until June 17, 1999, and the union claimed interest for this period.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that the employer's liability for interest ceased on January 12, 1999, as the grievor's loss of the use of the money after that date was a result of his own unjustified decision not to cash the cheque, rather than any wrongful conduct by the employer.

The Grievance Settlement Board reconvened to determine remedial issues following a finding that the employer contravened the collective agreement in laying off the grievor.

The union sought aggravated damages for bad faith and compensation for losses incurred when the grievor liquidated his RRSP and stock portfolio to cover living expenses.

The Board held it was functus officio regarding the bad faith claim, as it had already ruled on the issue in its initial award.

The Board also dismissed the claim for RRSP and stock losses, finding them too remote, not reasonably foreseeable, and speculative.

In a grievance arbitration, the Employer requested an adjournment to review requested documents for privilege and confidentiality before production.

The Grievor objected.

The Board granted the adjournment but subsequently ordered the Employer to produce all non-privileged documents forthwith and to provide reasons for any documents withheld.

The Board scheduled a hearing to address arguments on privilege for the withheld documents.

The respondent employer brought a preliminary motion to determine whether the applicant Review Officers were in the correct job class under the Pay Equity Act.

During the hearing, the applicants attempted to expand the scope of the motion to challenge the employer's entire job evaluation system.

The Tribunal ruled that the scope of the motion was restricted by the parties' pre-hearing agreement to the narrow issue of whether the Review Officers' duties, responsibilities, and qualifications distinguished them from other positions in their assigned job class.

Expanding the scope at this late stage would severely prejudice the employer.

The applicant union sought production of various government documents relating to the privatization of the 'GO Temp' service, alleging the Crown breached its duty to bargain in good faith by failing to disclose this decision during collective bargaining.

The Crown objected on grounds of timeliness and Crown public interest immunity.

The Board dismissed the timeliness objection.

Applying the test for Crown immunity, the Board found that certain Cabinet submissions and briefing notes were protected from disclosure.

However, the Board ordered the Crown to deposit specific documents reflecting the actual decision to privatize for the Board's confidential inspection to determine if they should be produced.