104 total
Grievances regarding performance-based compensation dismissed for lack of jurisdiction under Regulation 378/07.
The grievors alleged that the employer failed to follow its own operating procedures regarding compensation resulting from performance evaluations for the 2006-07 fiscal year, which adversely affected their pension calculations.
The employer raised a preliminary objection to the Board's jurisdiction.
The Public Service Grievance Board held that section 4(2) of Regulation 378/07 expressly precludes it from dealing with complaints about compensation provided or denied as a result of a performance evaluation.
Despite acknowledging the merits of the grievances, the Board dismissed them for lack of jurisdiction.
Grievance partially dismissed for lack of jurisdiction due to bargaining unit transfer; settlement breach claim proceeds.
The employer brought a motion to dismiss the grievor's grievance for lack of jurisdiction.
The grievor alleged she was denied pay increases and that the employer breached a prior settlement agreement by entering notations in her electronic file.
The Board held it lacked jurisdiction over the pay claims because the grievor's position had been transferred to the AMAPCEO bargaining unit, making her subject to the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act.
However, the Board found it retained jurisdiction to hear the allegations regarding the breach of the prior settlement agreement, as it had explicitly remained seized of its implementation.
Board issues procedural directions for production of documents and exchange of particulars in related grievances.
The Grievance Settlement Board issued procedural directions for the hearing of seven related grievances, six of which concerned a job competition and one concerning accommodation of a disability.
The Board ordered the employer to produce competition files and directed both parties to exchange written particulars of their allegations of fact and copies of documents they intend to rely upon, setting specific deadlines for compliance.
Judicial review of OHRC decision dismissed; alternative grievance procedure was appropriate forum for human rights issues.
The applicant sought judicial review of the Ontario Human Rights Commission's decision to refuse to investigate his human rights complaint.
The Commission had determined that the complaint was more appropriately dealt with under the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act and the Labour Relations Act, as the applicant had previously grieved his dismissal and reached a settlement through his union.
The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Commission's decision was not patently unreasonable because the applicant had access to an arbitration procedure capable of adjudicating human rights issues and had already reached a settlement.
