OPSGB 2007

During a hearing regarding the denial of tuition assistance for an MBA program, the grievor requested an order for further production of documents from the employer.

The grievor sought documents concerning exemptions applied for by the Pay Equity Commission and records of course approvals for the deciding manager.

The Board granted the request in part, ordering the production of exemption documents limited to a specific timeframe, and ordering the production of the manager's course approval records as they were arguably relevant to the grievor's assertion of a conflict of interest.

The grievors, managers at psychiatric hospitals, alleged that the employer breached their terms and conditions of employment when it retroactively recharacterized a portion of their 2004 lump sum pay for performance awards as a base salary increase.

The employer raised a preliminary objection, arguing the grievances disclosed no prima facie case and the issue had been decided in a previous case.

The Public Service Grievance Board upheld the preliminary objection, finding that the employer's retroactive extension of the salary range and corresponding reallocation of the performance award did not decrease the grievors' compensation or breach any enforceable promise.

The grievances were dismissed.

During a hearing concerning a grievance over the denial of tuition assistance, the grievor requested an order for the production of minutes from the Pay Equity Office's Executive Committee.

The employer opposed the request, arguing it was late and a fishing expedition.

The Public Service Grievance Board found that the minutes were not covered by a previous production order but were arguably relevant.

The Board ordered the employer to produce any executive committee minutes concerning the grievor's request for tuition assistance.

The grievor, a former employee who voluntarily retired, filed a grievance claiming compensation for the employer's failure to conduct a performance evaluation and award pay for performance prior to his retirement.

The employer raised preliminary objections, arguing the grievance was barred by Minutes of Settlement signed by the parties and by Regulation 977 under the Public Service Act.

The Public Service Grievance Board upheld the preliminary objections, finding that the comprehensive release in the Minutes of Settlement precluded any further claims arising from the employment relationship.

Furthermore, the Board held it lacked jurisdiction under subsection 31(4) of Regulation 977 to hear complaints regarding the method or outcome of performance evaluations.

The grievance was dismissed without costs.

The grievors, Operational Managers in the Management Compensation Plan, claimed entitlement to a supervisory shift premium (Management Responsibility Supplement) for periods when they were also entitled to overtime pay.

The employer brought a motion to dismiss the grievance for want of a prima facie case, arguing that section 10.20(2) of Regulation 977 explicitly prohibits receiving both the supplement and overtime for the same period of work.

The Board agreed with the employer, finding the regulatory language plain and unambiguous.

The grievances were dismissed.

The grievor, an Operational Manager, claimed entitlement to travel time and expenses for periods she was temporarily assigned to different correctional facilities between 2001 and 2004.

The employer denied the claim, arguing that the facilities were her normal place of work during those periods and that travel expenses were not a guaranteed entitlement for all temporary assignments.

The Public Service Grievance Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the grievor was travelling to her normal place of work during the claimed periods and that the employer's practice of paying travel expenses primarily applied when an employee was requested to move institutions on a temporary basis, which did not apply to the grievor's situation.

The grievor, a correctional officer, received an anonymous racist and threatening letter at her home, one of several sent to minority employees at the Toronto Jail.

She suffered mental stress, went on leave, and received WSIB benefits.

The parties agreed on the facts and asked the Public Service Grievance Board to determine the appropriate remedy.

The employer argued that the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act precluded further remedy for loss of income.

The Board held that the human rights guarantee against racial harassment was an implicit term of the employment contract.

The Board found it had jurisdiction to compensate for financial losses and mental distress flowing from the breach of this contractual guarantee, distinct from the WSIB's jurisdiction over health injuries.

The Board ordered the employer to pay the difference between her WSIB benefits and her regular income, plus $20,000 for mental distress, but declined to award costs.

The employer brought a motion for an order for production and further particulars from the grievor, who grieved his discharge following a criminal charge for off-duty conduct.

The grievor had been acquitted of the criminal charge.

The employer sought further details of the grievor's explanation for his behaviour.

The Board found that the grievor had provided sufficient particulars in the grievance material and declined to compel disclosure of evidence that might be brought in response to the employer's case.

The Board ordered the grievor to produce the one document he currently intended to rely on, with any further documents or facts to be produced after the employer's case.

Two Operational Managers grieved their salary treatment for discontinuous acting assignments prior to their permanent confirmation.

They argued that their acting assignments should have been treated as continuous or cumulative, which would have resulted in higher salaries due to merit pay eligibility.

The Public Service Grievance Board dismissed the grievances, finding that the employer correctly applied the Pay on Assignment Operating Policy, which treats each assignment as a discrete event.

The Board found no evidence of arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad faith treatment compared to other managers.

The grievor requested an order for production of various documents from the employer relating to a grievance over the denial of tuition assistance.

The Vice-Chair reviewed twenty specific requests for production.

The employer was ordered to produce the Pay Equity Commission's budget records for 1998-2003 and information regarding specific managerial tuition applications, as they were arguably relevant to the grievor's claim of pretext and conflict of interest.

Broader requests for Ministry-wide data and historical records were denied as irrelevant.