OPSGB 1998

The grievor filed a grievance alleging non-performance of a settlement agreement.

The agreement provided for an $8,000 payment less statutory deductions.

The grievor argued that the payment should be treated as pensionable earnings and that pension deductions should not have been made from the portion designated for legal fees.

The Employer conceded administrative errors regarding deductions from the legal fees portion and a pension deduction from the balance, owing the grievor $658.23.

The Board dismissed the grievance, finding the settlement agreement's language clear and unambiguous, with no requirement to treat the payment as pensionable earnings.

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.