GSB# 2024-01718

UNION# 2024-0310-0016

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Before

THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD

BETWEEN

Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Przeszlo)

Union

• and -

The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of the Attorney General)

Employer

BEFORE

Colin Johnston

Arbitrator

FOR THE UNION

Jessica Pan Ontario Public Service Employees Union Grievance Officer

FOR THE EMPLOYER

Regina Wong Treasury Board Secretariat Legal Services Branch Counsel

HEARING

August 28, 2025 Submissions: November 15, December 19, 2025; and January 15, 2026

Decision

1The Grievor, Jessica Przeszlo, filed a grievance on August 19, 2024, raising several issues, including discrimination and failure to accommodate, but primarily focusing on the denial of a job competition held in July 2022. The Grievor was hired as a Court Reporter at the Newmarket Court House on a six-month fixed-term contract running from April 4 to September 25, 2022. In July 2022, the Grievor applied for, and the employer interviewed her for another fixed-term Court Reporter position at the same courthouse. On July 21, the employer notified her that she was not the successful candidate for the position.

2The Grievor subsequently applied for a position as a Court and Client Representative at the Brampton Court House and was selected as the successful candidate. She started that job on October 2, 2022, and remains in that position to this day.

3This preliminary award addresses the employer’s request to dismiss the grievance as untimely.

Employer’s Position

4The employer contends that, pursuant to Article 22.1 of the collective agreement, the Grievor had until September 25, 2022, to file her grievance, but instead filed it nearly 2 years later. The delay is significant. The Grievor has no reasonable explanation for the delay, and given the length of time, the employer submits it reasonably assumed that she had abandoned the issue.

5The employer requests that I dismiss the grievance as untimely and relies on the following case law in support of its motion: Ontario Public Service Employees Union Liantzakis) v Ontario (Community Safety and Correctional Services), 2014 CanLII 70084 (ON GSB), Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Lachance) v Ontario (Community Safety and Correctional Services), 2017 CanLII 30326 (ON GSB), Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Smith et al) v. Ontario (Community and Social Services), 2008 CanLII 32791 (ON GSB), OPSEU (Berday) and Ontario (Ministry of Transportation), 2008 CanLII 70540 (ON GSB).

Union’s Position

6The union contends that this is an appropriate case in which to extend the time limits for filing a grievance pursuant to my discretionary authority under section 48(12) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995. It characterizes the dispute as akin to a termination. The denial of the job posting effectively meant her employment would end with the final day of her contract.

7It submits that part of the delay in filing the grievance is attributable to the Grievor’s health. She was hospitalized in August 2022 for a few days and again from June to August 2023 before she finished her contract. She was also hospitalized for a week at the beginning of May 2024.

8The Grievor was a short-term employee at the time the events occurred and had never filed a grievance before. She lacked sophistication concerning labour relations matters and was unfamiliar with the grievance process. She still has a genuine dispute that requires resolution, and argues that I should not dismiss it for technical or procedural reasons. It relies on the decision of Vice-Chair Lynk in OPSEU (Robbins) supra to support this submission.

9The union relies on the following authorities to oppose the employer’s timeliness motion: Re Becker Milk Company Ltd. and Teamsters Union, Local 647, 1978 CanLII 3489 (ON LA), Re Greater Niagara General Hospital and Ontario Nurses’ Association, 1981 CanLII 4449 (ON LA), Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Robbins) and The Crown in Right of Ontario (Liquor Control Board of Ontario) 2015 CanLII 36165 (ON GSB), Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Berday) and The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Transportation) 2008 CanLII 70540 (ON GSB).

Employer’s Reply

10The employer refutes the claim that the Grievor lacks sophistication, given her legal education and experience working in the court system. She was aware that her employment was covered under a collective agreement and that OPSEU represented her.

11In addition, the union has provided no medical information to support the claim that the delay in filing the grievance was due to medical reasons or to her brief hospitalizations. It relies on the following case law to support its reply submission, Ontario Public Service Employees’ Union (Mazara) v. Ontario (Community Safety and Correctional Services), 2012 CanLII 17235 (ON GSB), and Ontario Liquor Board Employees’ Union v. Ontario (Liquor Control Board) (Brennan), 2002 CanLII 45760 (ON GSB).

Analysis

12Article 22.1 of the collective agreement stipulates that a grievance must be filed within 30 days after the circumstance giving rise to the complaint occurred or ought reasonably have come to the attention of the employee. The provision states that a grievance filed beyond the time limits is deemed withdrawn.

22.2 If the complaint or difference is not resolved at the local level an employee may file a grievance, in writing, through the Union, with their manager within thirty (30) days after the circumstances giving rise to the complaint have occurred or have come or ought reasonably to have come to the attention of the employee, who will in turn forward the grievance to the designated management representative.

22.14.1 Where a grievance is not processed within the time allowed or has not been processed by the employee or the Union within the time prescribed it shall be deemed to have been withdrawn.

22.14.7 Notwithstanding Article 22.14.6, the GSB has the jurisdiction to apply section 48(16) of the Ontario Labour Relations Act to extend the timelines specified in the collective agreement at all stages of the grievance and arbitration processes.

13I accept that I have the authority to extend the time limits under the collective agreement in appropriate circumstances. The factors I must consider when exercising this authority were articulated by Arbitrator Schiff in Re Greater Niagara Hospital supra,

i. The nature of the grievance.

ii. Whether the delay occurred at the initial launch of the grievance or at a later stage.

iii. Whether the Grievor was responsible for the delay.

iv. The reason for the delay.

v. The length of the delay, and

vi. Whether the employer could reasonably have assumed the grievance was abandoned.

14Applying those factors to the facts before me, I begin with the nature of the grievance. I dispute the union’s claim that this grievance is akin to a termination case. The matter before me is, in substance, a job posting grievance. The Grievor was not terminated and had other opportunities to apply for other jobs, which she ultimately did. She was the successful candidate for another position, albeit at a different courthouse, and is employed to this date.

15The delay in the initial filing of the grievance is the Grievor's sole responsibility. According to the union, the reasons for the delay were her intermittent hospitalizations and her lack of sophistication and familiarity with the grievance process. It asserts that her intermittent hospitalizations contributed to the delay. It has provided limited medical information that supports the Grievor's hospitalization for brief periods. The medical evidence does not support the conclusion that the Grievor was incapacitated for lengthy periods.

16Regardless, even if I were to accept the union's claim in full that the Grievor has been hospitalized for approximately three months over two years. It does not explain why she could not file a grievance during the two years. There is no suggestion that her medical condition incapacitated her throughout that period.

17I respectfully disagree with the notion that the Grievor lacks sophistication in the process. She has a college degree and is a paralegal. Her job was to assist victims in navigating the legal system. The Grievor drafted her grievance in a lengthy narrative style that discusses, among other things, filing a lawsuit against the employer and references the two-year statutory limitation for filing a civil action. She clearly understands that there are time limits for filing complaints. I do not accept that the Grievor’s lacks sophistication in the legal process. Her offer of employment clearly states that OPSEU represents her. The fact that she has never filed a grievance does not excuse her from the obligations under the agreement.

18The nearly two-year delay is substantial. It is not a situation where the Grievor missed the deadlines by a few days or weeks. Given the length of the delay, the employer would have reasonably assumed that the Grievor was taking no steps to challenge the competition process, and the lapse in time prejudices the employer.

19Based on a consideration of the facts, case law, and the parties' submissions, I conclude that the grievance is untimely and the facts do not warrant an extension of the time limits in the circumstances. I dismiss the grievance on that basis.