OPSGB 1996

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.

The grievor filed a grievance objecting that he was not interviewed for an Area Appraisal Analyst position.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the grievance was not arbitrable, arguing that management has the right to select whom to interview and there was no allegation of bias or procedural flaw.

The Public Service Grievance Board agreed with the employer, finding that it lacked jurisdiction to second-guess management's selection of interviewees absent allegations of a flawed, biased, or discriminatory process.

The grievance was dismissed as not arbitrable.

The grievor filed a grievance seven years after being disciplined via demotion, arguing he only recently discovered a policy prohibiting demotion as discipline.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the grievance for excessive delay.

The Public Service Grievance Board granted the motion and dismissed the grievance, finding that a seven-year delay was unreasonable and inherently prejudicial to the employer, as the grievor had a responsibility to inquire into his rights at the time of the discipline.

The grievor, an Area Manager, filed a grievance alleging that the employer failed to apply its Management Compensation Plan (MCP) Compression Policy, resulting in a significant salary disparity between himself and a subordinate professional engineer.

The employer raised preliminary objections regarding the board's jurisdiction and the timeliness of the grievance.

The Public Service Grievance Board held that it lacked the legal jurisdiction to deal with supervisory salary compression or conversion disputes, or to intervene in the employer's application of the MCP Compression Policy.

The grievance was denied on jurisdictional grounds.

The grievor filed a grievance alleging wrongful termination from her position at the Liquor License Board of Ontario.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the Public Service Grievance Board lacked jurisdiction because the grievor was hired under the Liquor License Act, not the Public Service Act.

The Board agreed, finding that the grievor was not employed under the jurisdiction of a Deputy Minister as required by Regulation 977, and dismissed the grievance for lack of jurisdiction.

The Grievor alleged unfair treatment and mismanagement by his supervisor regarding two harassment grievances filed against him by a bargaining unit employee, which caused him severe stress and led to sick leave.

The Employer brought preliminary motions to dismiss the grievance for lack of jurisdiction and untimeliness, arguing the underlying grievances were withdrawn and no discipline was imposed.

The Public Service Grievance Board dismissed the Employer's motions, finding that the Grievor was entitled to fairness in the investigation process regardless of the outcome, and that the five-month delay in filing was not excessive given his medical leave.

The grievor, a professional engineer, sought a retroactive salary increase for 1990 based on an interest arbitration award released in 1991.

Before the award was released, the grievor was promoted to the Senior Management Group (SMG), which is excluded from bringing working conditions grievances to the Public Service Grievance Board.

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

The Board denied the motion, finding that the grievor was complaining about a matter that occurred while he was in a classification entitled to grieve, and he did not lose this right merely because he was subsequently promoted.

The Grievor, a Provincial Medical Toxicologist, was declared surplus and her position abolished during a major downsizing initiative by the Ministry of Labour.

She grieved the termination, alleging it was done in bad faith and was a disguised dismissal based on discrimination regarding her previous leaves of absence.

The Public Service Grievance Board found that the Employer made a legitimate business decision to eliminate the position under the Expenditure Control Program.

The Board concluded the Grievor failed to satisfy the onus of proving bad faith, discrimination, or unfairness in the decision-making process, and dismissed the grievance.

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.