OPSGB 2005

The grievor withdrew his grievance at the conclusion of mediation.

The Public Service Grievance Board recorded the withdrawal and terminated the proceeding without setting a hearing date.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the employee's grievance alleging workplace harassment and a poisoned work environment.

The employer argued the grievance was untimely, moot, and outside the Board's jurisdiction.

The Board dismissed the portions of the grievance relating to incidents from 2001 to 2003 due to excessive delay.

The Board also found that complaints regarding performance evaluations and related compensation were statutorily excluded from its jurisdiction.

However, the Board held that the allegation concerning the employee's forced return to her home position for health reasons in 2004 was timely, within jurisdiction, and not moot, allowing that specific issue to proceed to a hearing.

The grievors, Labour Relations Officers, alleged they were wrongly denied promotions due to systemic discrimination and racial bias.

At the outset of the hearing, the employer conceded that the Public Service Grievance Board has jurisdiction to hear grievances alleging systemic discrimination and to order appropriate remedies.

The Vice-Chair declared that the Board has such jurisdiction and issued orders for the disclosure of the competition file and other documents to be relied upon at the hearing.

The grievor failed to appear at the scheduled grievance hearing before the Public Service Grievance Board.

The Board sent a letter to the grievor directing him to provide adequate cause for his absence by a specified date, warning that failure to respond would result in dismissal.

The grievor did not respond.

Pursuant to Rule 7 of the Board's Rules, the grievance was dismissed for failure to appear.

The employer raised a preliminary objection to the Board's jurisdiction to hear a grievance from management employees regarding changes to their benefit plan, specifically the reduction in orthopaedic shoes and the rolling of the Employment Insurance premium refund into benefits.

The Board dismissed the grievance, finding no prima facie case that a term or condition of employment had been violated.

The Board held that comparisons to bargaining unit benefits could not form the basis of a manager's grievance, and the grievors failed to establish a legal entitlement to the previous benefit levels or a mandatory consultation process under the Employment Insurance Act.

The grievor filed a grievance seven months after receiving a 20-day disciplinary suspension.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the grievance as untimely under the Public Service Act.

The grievor argued the delay was justified because she had pursued a judicial review of the discipline, which was ultimately dismissed by the Divisional Court.

The Board applied the Becker Milk factors and found no compelling reason to extend the time limits, noting the grievor was aware of her right to grieve but chose to pursue judicial review instead.

The grievance was dismissed.

The grievor, a member of the OPSEU bargaining unit in an acting management position, grieved the denial of a managerial posting.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the Public Service Grievance Board lacked jurisdiction because the grievor was a bargaining unit member.

The Board upheld the objection, finding that section 31(1) of Regulation 977 to the Public Service Act explicitly excludes persons within a collective bargaining unit from filing a grievance under that Part.

The grievance was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The grievors, acting Operational Managers, filed grievances regarding pay increases with the Public Service Grievance Board after the employer initially claimed the Grievance Settlement Board lacked jurisdiction.

The employer brought a motion to dismiss the PSGB grievances for lack of jurisdiction, arguing the grievors remained OPSEU members covered by their collective agreement while in temporary acting positions.

The Vice-Chair agreed, finding that Section 31 of Regulation 977 to the Public Service Act excludes OPSEU members from grieving at the PSGB.

The grievances were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The grievors, a group of nurse managers, filed a grievance alleging they were denied a salary review to which they were entitled and were treated arbitrarily regarding salary and benefit disparities, specifically wage compression compared to their subordinates.

The employer argued that the process for setting managerial compensation does not involve direct input from managers at the grievors' level and that no specific cyclical review was guaranteed by policy.

The Public Service Grievance Board found that the employer's policies did not entitle the grievors to a specific type or process of salary review, and that they had been included in the cyclical salary reviews applied to other managers.

The Board concluded there was no evidence of arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad faith treatment, and dismissed the grievance.

The employer raised a preliminary objection to the jurisdiction of the Public Service Grievance Board to hear a grievance filed by nurse managers regarding salary and benefit disparities between their classification and the registered nurses who report to them.

The grievors sought a review of their wages, enhanced benefits, and a new mechanism for assessing managerial compensation.

The Board held that it lacks jurisdiction to set terms and conditions of employment, including compensation levels and compression ratios, as that is the exclusive function of the Civil Service Commission.

However, the Board assumed jurisdiction over the portion of the grievance alleging that the employer breached an established policy or promise by failing to conduct a cyclical salary review, and whether the employer acted arbitrarily or in bad faith in that regard.

The employer brought preliminary motions to dismiss several grievances filed by Operational Managers regarding their pay, arguing the grievances were untimely and beyond the Board's jurisdiction.

The grievances raised issues such as salary compression, pay on promotion, and credit for acting assignments.

The Board dismissed the portions of the grievances claiming an entitlement to a review of experience for a 'better than average' promotional increase, finding no arguable breach of policy.

However, the Board allowed the grievances relating to breaks in service during acting assignments and the maintenance of a 3% differential above direct reports to proceed to a hearing on the merits, finding they raised arguable continuing grievances within the Board's jurisdiction.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the grievor's pay on promotion grievance on the basis of delay.

The grievor filed the grievance in April 2003, complaining about compensation for acting assignments and promotions dating back to 1998.

The grievor argued he only became aware of the relevant policies in March 2003.

The Board found the grievor's explanation for the delay credible and reasonable, noting he acted promptly upon becoming aware of the policies.

The Board concluded that the employer would not be inevitably prejudiced by the delay and dismissed the preliminary motion, allowing the grievance to proceed to a hearing on the merits.

The grievor, a Group Manager Audit with the Ministry of Finance, grieved his termination for conflict of interest.

The employer alleged he operated a private accounting and bookkeeping business for various clients, including some he audited, while employed by the Ministry.

The grievor denied the allegations, claiming the business belonged to his brother.

The Public Service Grievance Board found the grievor's evidence lacked credibility and concluded he had operated the business, issued clearance certificates to his own clients who were suppressing sales, and used his position for personal gain.

The Board held this was a serious conflict of interest and breach of trust justifying dismissal.

The grievance was dismissed.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the employee's grievance regarding tuition assistance due to delay and failure to provide full particulars.

The Board found that the delay in scheduling the hearing was not solely attributable to the employee, as some delay was due to medical leave and administrative issues.

While the Board declined to dismiss the grievance for failure to provide particulars, it directed the employee to provide specific details regarding the alleged breaches of the Public Service Act and the basis for his complaint before the employer would be required to respond to his disclosure requests.