Leonard Marvy

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the grievor's complaint for lack of jurisdiction.

The grievor, a professional engineer reclassified to the Senior Management Group, alleged that the employer breached a policy by not applying a retroactive salary increase to his classification, resulting in salary compression where subordinates earned more than him.

The employer argued the Board lacked jurisdiction to set salary ranges or address salary compression.

The Board held that while it cannot set salary ranges, it has jurisdiction to adjudicate whether a policy forming part of the working conditions or terms of employment was breached.

The motion to dismiss was denied.

The grievor, a manager, filed a grievance alleging that the employer breached a longstanding policy that managers should not make less than the people they supervise, resulting in a salary inversion.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the grievance for lack of jurisdiction, arguing that the Board has no power to alter salary ranges set by Cabinet.

The Board dismissed the employer's motion, finding that it has jurisdiction to hear complaints alleging a breach of working conditions or terms of employment, including allegations that an existing policy regarding salary compression was violated.

The grievor was released from his position as a Treasury Policy Advisor due to a ministry reorganization and downsizing, but was subsequently redeployed to another ministry at the same classification and salary.

He filed a grievance alleging his release was a disguised dismissal.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the grievance, arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction to review a release under s. 22(4) of the Public Service Act and that the matter was moot due to the redeployment.

The Board held that while it has jurisdiction to review a release if bad faith is alleged, the grievor failed to provide any evidence of bad faith.

The Board concluded it had no grounds to review the employer's business decision and dismissed the grievance.

The grievor, a bargaining unit employee represented by OPSEU, was seconded to a management position.

Her secondment was terminated early, and she filed a grievance with the Public Service Grievance Board after OPSEU advised they could not assist her.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

The Board held that under the collective agreement and the Public Service Act, a bargaining unit employee seconded to a management position retains their rights under the collective agreement.

Therefore, the Grievance Settlement Board, not the Public Service Grievance Board, had jurisdiction.

The grievance was dismissed.