OPSGB 2000

The grievors, Group Managers (AM20) in the Ministry of Finance, filed a grievance alleging that the employer's reorganization of their duties and the creation of a new AM21 position constituted bad faith and a violation of their working conditions.

The reorganization was implemented to address salary compression issues arising from a new collective agreement for senior auditors.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the grievance was a classification matter outside the jurisdiction of the Public Service Grievance Board.

The Board heard evidence and concluded that while the reorganization may have been a poor administrative decision, there was no clear evidence of bad faith, discrimination, arbitrariness, or a breach of the Public Service Act.

Consequently, the Board declined jurisdiction and dismissed the grievance.

The grievor, an Operational Manager, grieved that classified Correctional Officers received retroactive increases in weekend and evening shift premiums, and argued that managers should receive the same based on past precedence.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the grievance for lack of jurisdiction, arguing the board cannot apply the terms of the OPSEU collective agreement to managers.

The Vice-Chair granted the motion and dismissed the grievance, following prior board decisions that established the board has no jurisdiction to hear such claims.

The grievors, operational managers at a correctional facility, filed grievances seeking the same pay and benefit increases granted to bargaining unit employees under a newly negotiated collective agreement.

The employer objected to the Board's jurisdiction.

The Board found that the terms and conditions of employment for operational managers are set by employer policy and regulation under the Public Service Act, not by collective agreement.

Following previous decisions, the Board concluded it lacked jurisdiction to apply collective agreement provisions to management staff and dismissed the grievances without a hearing.

The grievors, who are operational managers, sought the same pay and shift premium increases granted to bargaining unit employees under a newly negotiated collective agreement.

The employer objected to the Board's jurisdiction to apply collective agreement terms to non-bargaining unit staff.

The Board found that the terms and conditions of employment for operational managers are set by employer policy and regulation under the Public Service Act, not by the collective agreement.

Relying on previous decisions, the Board concluded it lacked jurisdiction to grant the requested relief and dismissed the grievance without a hearing.

The grievor filed a grievance claiming compensation for wearing a pager from November 1997 to September 1998.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the grievance was untimely, as it was filed 18 months after the grievor was informed he would not receive extra compensation, well beyond the 14-day time limit in Regulation 977 of the Public Service Act.

The Public Service Grievance Board found no extenuating circumstances to justify extending the time limit and dismissed the grievance as untimely.

The grievor, a Human Resources Consultant, took a two-year leave of absence to avoid being declared surplus during a downsizing and to reach ten years of continuous service for retirement benefits.

During his leave, several vacancies arose and were filled through open competitions.

The grievor filed a grievance claiming he should have been considered for direct assignment to these positions or, alternatively, that the employer had a duty to inform him of the vacancies and his options.

The Public Service Grievance Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the grievor was not a surplus employee while on leave and therefore had no right to direct assignment.

The Board also found no breach of any duty to inform, as the grievor had made incorrect assumptions about his status and failed to maintain contact with the employer to seek advice.

The grievor sought clarification of a previous Board decision regarding the interpretation of Minutes of Settlement.

The grievor argued that a $3,369.00 sick benefit payment made during the settlement period should be paid in addition to the gross settlement amount.

The Board clarified that the $3,369.00 payment represents a part payment of the total sum payable by the employer and must be included in the calculation of the settlement amount, rather than paid in addition to it.

The parties reached a settlement during a mediation/arbitration of a grievance but subsequently disagreed on the interpretation of the settlement minutes.

The employer argued that a $3,369 sick benefit payment already made to the grievor should be included in the $90,000 total settlement amount to avoid double recovery, while the grievor argued the employer was estopped from including it.

The Public Service Grievance Board held that the plain reading of the settlement required the prior payment to be included as a prepayment of the sick pay benefits.

The Board also declined to award costs to the grievor, adhering to its general policy.

The grievors, who were managers during the 1996 OPSEU strike, filed grievances 16 to 18 months after the strike ended, claiming they were entitled to time-and-a-half for overtime and standby pay.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the grievances for untimeliness under the Public Service Act.

The Public Service Grievance Board dismissed the grievances, finding that the grievors' belief that senior management was reviewing the issue did not justify such a significant delay in filing.

The grievor objected to the Employer's representative, a Staff Relations Officer, acting in the case on the basis that she had previously acted as an Investigator in the Independent Investigations Unit and had discussed his workplace discrimination and harassment complaint with him.

The grievor argued this created a conflict of interest and a denial of natural justice.

The Public Service Grievance Board dismissed the preliminary objection, finding no evidence that confidential information was imparted to the representative, but noted the issue could be revisited if evidence of confidential disclosure emerged during the hearing on the merits.

The grievors, who worked during a 1996 strike, filed complaints claiming compensation for standby pay.

The employer objected to the board's jurisdiction, arguing that the grievors had signed release forms settling all claims for compensation arising from work performed during the strike, with the exception of pre-existing grievances based on a specific prior decision.

The board found that the release forms clearly barred the grievors' claims for standby pay, as they did not fall within the sole exception.

The employer's motion was granted and the grievances were dismissed.

The grievor's employment was terminated and later resolved through Minutes of Settlement following his acquittal on criminal charges.

The grievor subsequently filed new grievances claiming expenses and overtime payments incurred during his suspension and termination.

The Public Service Grievance Board dismissed the claims, finding that the Minutes of Settlement contained a full and final release clause barring any new claims relating to the termination.

The Board held that the employer had not breached the settlement agreement and that the grievor was bound by its terms.

The grievor filed a classification grievance in 1992, which was referred to the Classification Rating Committee (CRC).

Before the CRC could hear the grievance, legislative amendments abolished the CRC and eliminated the right to grieve classification issues.

The grievor requested that the Public Service Grievance Board (PSGB) hear the grievance.

The PSGB held that it lacked jurisdiction, as it was never granted the authority to hear classification grievances, and the abolition of the CRC did not transfer such jurisdiction to the PSGB.

The grievor, a former Cartography Supervisor, filed a grievance alleging he was underclassified and seeking retroactive pay increases equivalent to those awarded to bargaining unit cartographers.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the grievance as inarbitrable.

The Public Service Grievance Board granted the motion, finding that it lacked jurisdiction to hear classification grievances or claims based on bargaining unit awards absent allegations of bad faith or discrimination.

The Board also noted the grievance was untimely, as the grievor had known of the issues since 1989 and 1995 but did not grieve until 1997.

The grievance was dismissed.

The grievors, operational managers at a detention centre, sought overtime compensation for all hours during a 35-day strike, including time spent at home resting.

They argued they were promised 'significant recognition' and believed managers at another institution were paid for the entire strike duration.

The Public Service Grievance Board dismissed the grievances, finding that the applicable Order-in-Council did not authorize overtime pay for time not worked in the institution, no clear promise of such payment was made, and evidence showed managers at the other institution were only paid for actual overtime hours worked.

The grievor filed multiple grievances alleging the Employer mishandled unfounded harassment allegations made against him by a co-worker.

The grievor argued the Employer breached the Workplace Discrimination and Harassment Prevention (WDHP) Guidelines by failing to act expeditiously, failing to disclose the specific allegations to him, and conducting a flawed investigation.

The Public Service Grievance Board found that the Employer breached the WDHP Directive by delaying action for over a year, failing to provide the grievor with detailed particulars of the accusations, and allowing the complainant to dictate who the investigator could interview.

The grievances were upheld, with the matter of remedy deferred to a newly appointed panel.

The Grievor, a Staff Psychiatrist, filed grievances alleging that the Employer breached his employment contract by reassigning him from Unit Director to a lower-rated position for health reasons, and by subsequently harassing him regarding sick leave and medical assessments.

The Public Service Grievance Board found that the Grievor's severe arthritic condition caused extensive absences, justifying the reassignment under s. 11(3) of Regulation 977 to ensure proper functioning of the unit.

The Board also found the Employer's actions regarding medical assessments and restricting the Grievor's access to office equipment while on sick leave were reasonable and justified.

The grievances were dismissed.