OPSGB 2009

The complainant and the employer requested that their agreement for the disclosure of documents and particulars be made an order of the Public Service Grievance Board.

The Vice-Chair issued the consent order, directing the employer to provide details regarding complaints, investigations, and staffing decisions within 14 days, subject to a restriction that the documents only be used for the purpose of the complaint before the board.

The complainant, an Operational Manager at a detention centre, filed multiple grievances claiming compensation for missed overtime opportunities, including community escort duty.

The Public Service Grievance Board found that the employer did not breach the terms of employment by using police for community escort duty, as the situations were not emergencies.

The Board also dismissed claims regarding shifts filled at straight time.

However, the Board allowed grievances where the complainant's name was skipped or where overtime was improperly offered to acting managers or managers with higher accumulated hours.

The Board ordered the employer to offer the complainant additional overtime opportunities on a priority basis, rejecting the complainant's request for monetary compensation.

The complainants, Operational Managers at the Central East Correctional Centre, grieved the employer's failure to offer them overtime opportunities for hospital escort duty before hiring paid duty police.

They argued that staffing shortages constituted an 'emergency' under the applicable policy, which required managers to be used before police in an emergency.

The Public Service Grievance Board dismissed the grievances, finding that the ordinary meaning of 'emergency' implies sudden danger and immediacy, which did not apply to the recurring staffing situations grieved.

The employer's practice of using police for non-911 hospital escorts did not violate the policy.

The grievor, a Review Officer with the Pay Equity Commission, grieved the employer's denial of his request for tuition assistance for an MBA program.

He alleged the denial was arbitrary, discriminatory, and in bad faith, constituting a reprisal for his previous pay equity complaints and grievances.

The employer maintained the denial was a valid exercise of discretion based on fiscal restraint and the fact that the MBA was not directly related to his core duties.

The Public Service Grievance Board dismissed the grievance, finding no evidence of bad faith or improper motivation, and concluding that the manager's decision was a reasonable exercise of discretion given the fiscal pressures at the time.

The grievor, who was unrepresented, requested an adjournment of his scheduled grievance hearings due to illness.

The employer opposed the adjournment and moved to dismiss the grievances, arguing the grievor's sick note was inadequate.

The Vice-Chair suspended the decision on the employer's motion to dismiss and granted the grievor an opportunity to provide a more detailed medical opinion explaining his inability to participate, and to retain counsel.

The employer brought a motion to dismiss a grievance filed by Operational Managers claiming inadequate training to complete their performance management plans.

The employer argued the Board lacked jurisdiction as the matter related to performance evaluation.

The Board agreed, finding that the complaints about timelines and alleged threats were directly related to the method of evaluating performance, which is excluded from its jurisdiction under Regulation 378/07.

Furthermore, the Board found the grievance failed to establish a prima facie case that any term or condition of employment had been breached.

The grievance was dismissed.

The grievors, who are managers, filed a grievance alleging discrimination and unfair treatment because they did not receive the same salary increases as the bargaining unit employees they supervise, despite performing the same duties in addition to their managerial responsibilities.

The employer brought a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, arguing it was essentially a classification or salary compression grievance.

The Public Service Grievance Board granted the motion and dismissed the grievance, holding that it lacks jurisdiction to review classification decisions or remedy salary compression absent a breach of a specific policy, term of employment, or evidence of bad faith.

The grievor filed a complaint with the Public Service Grievance Board regarding two job competitions for managerial positions.

The employer raised a preliminary objection, arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction because the grievor was a member of the AMAPCEO bargaining unit at all material times.

The grievor argued that while acting in a temporary managerial assignment, she should not be considered a member of the bargaining unit.

The Vice-Chair found that under the clear language of the AMAPCEO collective agreement, the grievor remained covered by the agreement during her temporary assignment.

Consequently, she was a member of a bargaining unit under the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act and was excluded from filing a complaint under O. Reg. 378/07.

The complaint was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The employer alleged that the grievor breached a Memorandum of Settlement resolving his wrongful dismissal grievance by launching a civil action for defamation and conspiracy against two former colleagues.

The settlement included a broad release of all claims regarding his past employment, a confidentiality clause, and a non-disparagement clause.

The Public Service Grievance Board found that the civil suit breached the settlement, as it attempted to litigate matters related to his past employment that were fully and finally resolved by the agreement.

The Board issued a declaration of breach and remained seized of the remedial aspects.

The grievor, an Operational Manager at a jail, was discharged after being charged with criminal harassment for off-duty conduct involving observing a former partner's house with binoculars.

He was also discharged for failing to fully cooperate with an internal investigation under s. 22 of the Ministry of Correctional Services Act, having refused to answer certain questions on the advice of counsel.

The grievor was later acquitted of the criminal charges.

The Board found that the grievor did not have a Charter right to remain silent during the administrative investigation, but his limited participation did not amount to a disciplinable failure to cooperate under the circumstances.

While the off-duty conduct warranted some discipline due to its impact on the employer's reputation, discharge was excessive given the acquittal, his long service, and the lack of proven intimidatory intent.

The Board substituted a 15-day suspension and ordered reinstatement with compensation from the date of acquittal.

The grievor alleged that the employer breached minutes of settlement by returning him to his home position after a six-month developmental opportunity as a Labour Relations Specialist.

The grievor argued that he should not have been returned to his home position without proof of poor performance.

The Public Service Grievance Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the clear language of the settlement agreement only entitled the grievor to a six-month developmental opportunity, after which employees normally return to their home positions.

The employer had fulfilled its obligations under the agreement.