Shiran Brener

The complainant, a civilian employee with the OPP, filed a complaint alleging the employer grossly mishandled a workplace investigation and breached its duty of fairness.

The employer raised preliminary objections, arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction as no term or condition of employment was breached, and that the complaint was untimely.

The Public Service Grievance Board dismissed the objections, finding the complainant established a prima facie case that the employer's respectful workplace policy and duty of fairness constituted terms of employment.

The Board also held that while some earlier events fell outside the mandatory 14-day limitation period, recent communications within the period constituted timely allegations of ongoing breaches.

The Union sought an order for the production of documents from the Employer regarding a grievance.

The Arbitrator ordered the Employer to produce documents relevant to the creation of the Senior Strategic Advisor position, the decision to terminate the complainant, and any other arguably relevant documents by June 26, 2023.

The Union filed a grievance alleging the Employer failed to investigate and take corrective action regarding two incidents of workplace harassment by a co-worker, seeking damages for the grievor's pain and suffering.

The Employer brought a preliminary motion arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction to award such damages because they are compensable under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act (WSIA).

The Arbitrator allowed the Employer's motion, finding that damages for mental distress and pain and suffering arising from workplace harassment are compensable under the WSIA, and therefore s. 26(2) of the WSIA bars the Board from awarding them.

The union filed a grievance alleging discrimination and failure to accommodate when the grievor was denied an acting manager position.

The employer brought a motion to strike paragraphs of the particulars relating to this competition, arguing the arbitrator lacked jurisdiction because the position was outside the bargaining unit.

The arbitrator agreed, finding that the collective agreement's grievance procedure and discrimination protections only apply to matters covered by the agreement.

The motion to strike was granted.

The grievor, an OPSEU bargaining unit member, grieved the employer's decision not to interview her for a position in the AMAPCEO bargaining unit.

The employer raised a preliminary objection to the Board's jurisdiction.

The Arbitrator upheld the objection, finding that an OPSEU member has no right to grieve a competition conducted under another collective agreement, and has the same status as an external candidate.

The grievance was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The Employer challenged the adequacy of the Union's particulars in a grievance alleging violations of the collective agreement, the Human Rights Code, and the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The Union acknowledged the deficiency but noted the grievor's reluctance to disclose information due to fear of workplace reprisal.

The Arbitrator agreed the particulars were insufficient and directed the grievor to provide the necessary information to Union counsel so adequate particulars could be provided to the Employer, warning that failure to do so could result in the deficient paragraphs being struck.

The complainant, whose home position was in an OPSEU bargaining unit, filed a complaint regarding her compensation during a temporary assignment to an acting management position.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the Public Service Grievance Board lacked jurisdiction because the complainant remained a member of the bargaining unit during her temporary assignment.

The Board agreed, finding that under Regulation 378/07 and the collective agreement, the complainant continued to pay union dues and was covered by the collective agreement, rendering her ineligible to file a complaint with the Board.

The complaint was dismissed.

The union filed grievances alleging the employer failed to provide a harassment-free and safe workplace, seeking monetary damages for mental distress.

The employer brought a preliminary motion arguing the Grievance Settlement Board lacked jurisdiction to award damages for injuries compensable under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act (WSIA).

The arbitrator held that the Board lacks jurisdiction to award monetary damages for mental distress resulting from workplace harassment, as such claims fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the WSIA regime.

However, the Board retains jurisdiction to grant declaratory relief and other monetary remedies not compensable under the WSIA.

In the context of four grievances, the Union sought the production of arguably relevant documents, including occurrence reports, investigation notes, and the medical records of a specific individual.

The Arbitrator ordered the Employer to disclose the requested documents.

The production of the medical records was made subject to strict confidentiality conditions, including prohibitions on photocopying and requirements that the grievors only review the documents in the presence of legal counsel.

The complainant filed a grievance alleging the employer failed to accommodate her request for a modified shift schedule based on a medical condition.

The employer asserted it had met its duty to accommodate and raised a preliminary objection regarding the timeliness of the complaint under Regulation 378/07 of the Public Service of Ontario Act, 2016.

Following an initial mediation session, the Board issued an interim decision directing the parties to exchange specific documents and authorities, and scheduled a further mediation session to be followed immediately by an arbitration hearing on the preliminary objection if mediation fails.

The parties attended a mediation session which failed to resolve the complaint.

The Employer requested the Board to address its preliminary objection that the complaint was not filed within the notice period required by Ontario Regulation 378/07.

Acknowledging the Complainant needed more time to respond, the Board directed that a teleconference hearing be scheduled solely to hear oral submissions on the timeliness objection.

The complainant, a Sergeant, filed a grievance seeking a 6.4% retroactive wage increase that was provided to managers who were in their positions as of April 1, 2016.

The complainant commenced employment after this date.

The employer raised preliminary objections regarding the timeliness of the complaint and the inclusion of a second employee who had not filed a separate complaint.

The Public Service Grievance Board found that the second employee was not properly a complainant before the Board.

On the merits, the Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the term of employment providing the wage increase clearly applied only to those employed as of April 1, 2016, and the Board had no authority to create a new term of employment or award a wage increase not provided for in the existing terms.