OPSGB 1999

The grievor filed a grievance alleging the employer failed to provide a healthy and safe work environment, resulting in permanent bronchial damage, and sought a transfer to accommodate his medical condition.

During the course of the proceedings, the grievor obtained a permanent, full-time position at a higher classification with another Ministry.

The employer brought a motion to dismiss the grievance for mootness.

The Public Service Grievance Board granted the motion, finding that the factual underpinnings of the case had been eliminated and there was no longer a live controversy or remedy to grant.

The grievor's request for legal and relocation costs was also denied as there was no evidence of bad faith by the employer.

In a grievance arbitration, the Employer requested an adjournment to review requested documents for privilege and confidentiality before production.

The Grievor objected.

The Board granted the adjournment but subsequently ordered the Employer to produce all non-privileged documents forthwith and to provide reasons for any documents withheld.

The Board scheduled a hearing to address arguments on privilege for the withheld documents.

The grievor, an Operational Manager, sought to have his continuous service date recalculated based on new collective agreement language negotiated for the bargaining unit after he had moved to a management position.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the Public Service Grievance Board lacked jurisdiction to apply collective agreement provisions to a manager governed by the Public Service Act.

The Board agreed, finding that the grievor's employment rights were governed by statute and Regulation 977, not the collective agreement, and dismissed the grievance.

The grievors, Schedule 6 managers, sought compensation for time spent on standby during the 1996 OPSEU strike.

They filed their grievances 18 months after the strike ended.

The Public Service Grievance Board found that Order-in-Council 2161/90 did not provide standby pay for Schedule 6 employees, and there was insufficient evidence of a clear promise by the employer to pay them.

The Board also held that the 18-month delay in filing the grievances was unjustified, despite the grievors' belief that they would eventually be compensated.

The grievances were dismissed on both the merits and timeliness.

The grievors, operational managers on a compressed work week, sought retroactive compensation for statutory holidays falling on regular days off, claiming entitlement to the same retroactivity granted to bargaining unit employees.

The employer raised preliminary objections regarding timeliness and res judicata based on prior Board decisions.

The Public Service Grievance Board dismissed the grievances, finding they were filed beyond the 14-day limit under Regulation 977 of the Public Service Act without justifiable reason for delay.

Furthermore, the Board agreed with prior decisions that operational managers were not covered by the collective agreement and had no independent entitlement to the earlier retroactivity date.

The grievor, an Operational Manager, grieved his exclusion from a job competition for a Deputy Superintendent position.

He alleged that the employer's requirement of three months' experience in a similar position, combined with its refusal to rotate him through the position on an acting basis, was discriminatory and in bad faith.

The employer raised a preliminary objection regarding the Board's jurisdiction to review management's determination of job criteria.

The Public Service Grievance Board upheld the preliminary objection and dismissed the grievance, finding that the employer has the right to determine job qualifications and fill acting vacancies, and that its actions did not constitute bad faith or discrimination.

The grievors challenged the results of a job competition for the new position of Control and Risk Analyst, alleging the selection process was unfair.

The competition utilized a simulation exercise evaluated by a three-person panel using a consensus scoring method, where a single zero score eliminated a candidate.

The Public Service Grievance Board found that the consensus marking scheme was a significant and serious flaw, as it resulted in panel members surrendering their individual judgment.

The grievances were granted, and the employer was ordered to re-run the competition for the affected positions if the parties could not agree to reassess the candidates based on their individual scores.

The grievors, former Area Managers, alleged they were constructively dismissed when their positions were eliminated and replaced by Area Vice President positions, for which they unsuccessfully competed.

The Employer raised a preliminary objection that the Board lacked jurisdiction.

The Board upheld the objection and dismissed the grievances, finding that the grievors failed to file within the 14-day statutory time limit and that the Board has no jurisdiction under the Public Service Act to adjudicate claims of constructive dismissal for Schedule I employees who were surplused rather than discharged for cause.

The grievor, a public servant, filed a grievance alleging he was transferred out of a permanent AM-20 position without consent and sought reinstatement to a fully-funded, permanent AM-20 position.

The employer raised a preliminary objection regarding the Public Service Grievance Board's jurisdiction to grant such relief.

The Board reviewed the Public Service Act and Regulation 977, concluding that the Civil Service Commission has exclusive jurisdiction to appoint persons to positions.

Consequently, the Board held it lacked jurisdiction to issue a directive placing the grievor in a permanent position.

The grievor, a former Employment Equity Manager, filed four grievances against the Ministry of Transportation.

She alleged that her transfer to a Project Manager position was arbitrary, discriminatory, and the culmination of a series of acts of sexual discrimination and harassment.

She also grieved the employer's handling of a harassment complaint made against her by a subordinate, and the employer's decision not to grant her an interview for a subsequent Employment Equity Manager competition.

The Public Service Grievance Board dismissed all four grievances.

The Board found that the transfer was made for legitimate business reasons and to remove the grievor from a discordant work environment, not for discriminatory reasons.

The Board also found no breach of the duty of fairness in the handling of the complaint against her, and concluded that the decision not to interview her for the competition was a reasonable, conscious decision by the employer.