OPSGB 2006

The grievors, managers at Developmental Services Facilities, filed grievances claiming they should have received double time for all hours worked during the 2002 OPSEU strike, similar to managers in correctional facilities.

The employer brought preliminary motions arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction over group grievances, the grievances were untimely, and they failed to disclose a prima facie case.

The Board dismissed the grievances on the basis that they did not establish a prima facie case.

The grievors were paid in accordance with the applicable regulation, and there was no contractual promise or term of employment entitling them to the more generous overtime payments received by correctional facility managers.

The employer brought a preliminary objection to dismiss the grievance without a hearing on the merits.

The grievor, a manager, claimed that the employer's pay policies resulted in newly promoted managers earning more than him, which he argued was unfair and discriminatory.

The Board found that even assuming the grievor's facts were true, he failed to identify a specific term or condition of employment that had been breached.

The general policy statements regarding fairness did not constitute a promise of a specific wage level or guarantee that later-promoted managers would not earn more.

The preliminary objection was granted and the grievance was dismissed.

The grievors, employed as Labour Relations Officers, alleged systemic discrimination after being unsuccessful in a job competition for a Labour Relations Specialist position.

The employer brought three preliminary motions to limit the scope of evidence at the hearing.

The Grievance Board granted the employer's first motion, excluding evidence related to a previously settled grievance of another employee.

The Board also granted the second motion, limiting the admissible evidence to events occurring within three years prior to the filing of the grievances.

However, the Board denied the employer's third motion to strike certain particulars for lacking detail, finding that the particulars provided were sufficient for the employer to know the case it had to meet.

The grievors, 24 Operational Managers, claimed they were promised a 2% increase to their individual salary rates prior to the application of their 5% pay for performance awards for 2004-2005.

The employer maintained that the 2% increase was an extension to the salary range maximum, not an automatic across-the-board increase to individual rates, and that the 5% merit award was delivered in two steps: progression to the new maximum and a lump sum for the remainder.

The Board found it had jurisdiction to hear the dispute as it concerned the application of basic salary rates rather than the performance evaluation itself.

The Board dismissed the grievances, concluding that the employer's communications did not promise a 2% individual increase prior to the merit awards, and the compensation was implemented as intended under the new performance-based system.

The employer raised a preliminary objection to the arbitrability of the grievor's claim for travel time and expenses from 2001 to 2004, arguing the grievance filed in June 2005 was untimely.

The grievor argued she filed within 14 days of becoming aware of the terms and conditions of employment on which she based her claim, as required by s. 34(1) of Regulation 977.

The Board accepted the grievor's uncontradicted evidence that she only became aware of the employer's policy and practice regarding travel expenses shortly before filing.

The Board dismissed the employer's preliminary objection, finding the grievance was timely based on the subjective awareness test, and directed the matter to proceed to a hearing on the merits.

The grievor, an Operational Manager, claimed mileage expenses for a period during which he was temporarily assigned to the Brockville Jail while awaiting a reporting date to a new facility.

He argued that other managers temporarily assigned to the same jail received travel expenses.

The Public Service Grievance Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the grievor's normal place of work remained the Brockville Jail and he did not experience a change in work location or commute unlike the other managers.

The Board concluded there was no contractual right, policy, or regulation entitling the grievor to the claimed travel expenses.

The grievor filed a grievance claiming that rules relating to promotional increases were incorrectly applied to him.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the Public Service Grievance Board lacked jurisdiction because the grievor was a member of the AMAPCEO bargaining unit at the time the grievance was filed.

The Board agreed, finding that under section 31(1) of Regulation 977 to The Public Service Act, persons within a bargaining unit are not eligible to file a grievance under that Part.

The grievance was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The grievor, an Operational Manager, claimed his salary was incorrectly calculated and sought an ongoing 3% salary increase based on a letter from senior management.

The employer maintained the letter offered a one-time lump sum payment to address pay inequities caused by the timing of promotions.

The Public Service Grievance Board found that the employer's subsequent communications clarified the offer was for a lump sum, not an ongoing salary adjustment.

As there was no mutual agreement on an ongoing salary increase, it did not become an enforceable term of employment.

The grievance was dismissed.

The grievor sought compensation for travel time and expenses incurred during his assignment to the Ontario Correctional Institute (OCI) before being transferred to his preferred location, Maplehurst Correctional Complex.

The grievor argued that a flawed 2001 mass competition delayed his assignment to Maplehurst, making his time at OCI a temporary assignment for which travel expenses should be paid.

The Public Service Grievance Board dismissed the claim, finding no causal connection between the flawed competition and the travel expenses incurred, as the evidence did not establish that the grievor would have been assigned to Maplehurst earlier had the competition been conducted properly.

The grievor filed a grievance alleging the employer failed to accommodate his disability from January 2002 until his voluntary retirement in June 2003.

The grievance was filed in March 2004, over eight months after his retirement.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the grievance due to delay and because the grievor was no longer an employee.

The Public Service Grievance Board allowed the employer's preliminary objection, finding that the delay in grieving was undue and would cause prejudice to the employer, particularly given the intervening voluntary retirement agreement.

The grievance was dismissed.

The grievor withdrew from the proceedings before the Public Service Grievance Board on May 5, 2006.

As a result, the Vice-Chair ordered the proceedings terminated.

The grievor alleged that the employer breached a term or condition of her employment by returning her to her home position from a secondment in August 2004, claiming that a dysfunctional work environment negatively affected her health.

At the hearing, the employer brought a motion to dismiss the grievance for failing to establish a prima facie case.

The Public Service Grievance Board granted the motion and dismissed the grievance, finding no medical evidence that the grievor had a health problem preventing her return in the summer of 2004, nor any evidence that the employer breached a term or condition of employment.

The employer raised a preliminary objection arguing the Public Service Grievance Board lacked jurisdiction to hear a grievance regarding the denial of tuition assistance, asserting the grievance did not allege a violation of a specific term or condition of employment.

The Board dismissed the objection, finding it had jurisdiction to determine whether the applicable regulation, directives, and policies constituted a working condition or term of employment that was breached.

The matter was ordered to proceed to a hearing on the merits.

The grievor filed a grievance claiming entitlement to ongoing travel time, mileage, and lunches between his home in Oshawa and the Mimico Correctional Institute, retroactive to October 20, 2003.

The employer argued the grievance was out of time, but the Board ruled it a continuing grievance.

On the merits, the Board found that the grievor's normal place of work was Mimico, and he was not entitled to travel expenses under the applicable regulations or policies.

The grievance was dismissed.

The grievor filed a grievance alleging a breach of the employer's policies regarding pay on assignment and pay for performance.

The board previously dismissed the grievance for lack of jurisdiction.

The grievor requested the board to reconsider the pay on assignment portion.

The board held that it was functus officio and lacked the power to reconsider its previous decision.

Furthermore, based on a recent board decision on the same issue, the grievance lacked merit.

The grievance was dismissed.

The grievors, Operational Managers, alleged the employer breached a 2002 memorandum of settlement by requiring them to participate in a selection process to reduce the number of managers from 26 to 13 following a decision not to complete the expansion of a facility.

The memorandum provided that staffing imbalances created by the settlement would not be resolved through a competition process.

The Board found that the staffing imbalance was not created by the 2002 settlement, but rather by the 2005 decision not to finish the expansion.

Therefore, the employer did not violate the memorandum by using a selection process to downsize.

The grievances were dismissed.

The grievors, Operational Managers, alleged the employer breached a 2002 memorandum of settlement by requiring them to compete for their positions during a 2005 downsizing.

The settlement prohibited resolving staffing imbalances created by the settlement through a competition process.

The Board found that the staffing imbalance was not created by the 2002 settlement, but rather by a 2005 government decision not to complete the expansion of the facility.

Therefore, the employer did not violate the settlement by using a selection process to downsize.

The grievances were dismissed.