OPSGB 2002

The grievor, a former intern, filed a grievance alleging that his termination notice was invalid under the Employment Standards Act because it was delivered by intergovernmental mail rather than personally or by registered mail.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the grievance for being filed outside the 14-day time limit under the Public Service Act.

The Board extended the time limits, finding the delay was short and caused no prejudice.

On the merits, the Board found a technical violation of the ESA's delivery requirements but declined to award damages, as the grievor received actual notice and suffered no prejudice.

The grievors, Operational Managers in correctional institutions slated for closure, argued that the restructuring constituted a material change under section 22(4) of the Public Service Act, entitling them to transfer to vacant positions under section 14(2) of Regulation 977.

The employer contended that section 22(4) had not been triggered as the institutions had not yet closed and the grievors were still needed.

The Public Service Grievance Board found that the minister's announcement of the closures constituted a clear likelihood of job loss, thereby triggering the surplus protections.

The Board held that the employer's job competition, which allowed non-OM-16s to apply for vacancies, violated the grievors' rights under the Act and Regulation.

The grievors, Operational Managers at a detention centre, grieved that they should receive shift premiums in addition to overtime pay, similar to bargaining unit members under their collective agreement.

The employer brought a motion to dismiss.

The Public Service Grievance Board dismissed the grievance, holding that management employees have no legal entitlement to benefits based on the terms of a bargaining unit's collective agreement.

The Board found no evidence of bad faith, arbitrariness, or discrimination, and noted that the employer no longer maintained a compression policy to ensure a pay gap between management and bargaining unit employees.

The grievor, a sergeant with the Ontario Governments Protective Service, filed a working conditions grievance after the employer reduced her scheduled rest days from four to one per 56-day rotation.

She subsequently amended her grievance to allege harassment and reprisal by her supervisors for filing the initial complaint.

The Public Service Grievance Board found that while the employer had the management right to alter the work schedule to provide an unencumbered lunch break, it failed to provide clear notice of this change until December 14, 1998, entitling the grievor to compensation for lost lieu days up to that date.

Furthermore, the Board upheld the harassment grievance, finding that the employer's actions, including threats of privatization and an unjustified negative performance evaluation, constituted a pattern of reprisal intended to dissuade the grievor from exercising her rights.

The Board ordered the employer to cease and desist all harassment and awarded the grievor two-thirds of her costs on a solicitor-client basis due to exceptional circumstances.

The grievor, a non-engineer who had historically been paid the same salary as professional engineers, filed a grievance after a new collective agreement for engineers resulted in a significant pay disparity.

The employer brought preliminary motions to dismiss the grievance for lack of jurisdiction and untimeliness.

The Board dismissed the employer's motions, finding that it had jurisdiction to hear allegations of a breach of a working condition or term of employment.

The Board also extended the time limits for filing the grievance, noting the delay was bona fide, the grievance had significant ongoing monetary implications, and the employer was not prejudiced.