OPSGB 2011

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the complainant's grievance alleging reprisal for disclosing wrongdoing.

The employer argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because the complainant did not provide proper notice under the Public Service of Ontario Act, 2006, and the allegations did not constitute a disclosure of wrongdoing under Part VI.

The Board found that the complainant's allegations of human rights breaches to his Deputy Minister qualified as a disclosure of wrongdoing.

The Board further held that the mandatory notice and timeliness requirements of Regulation 378/07 do not apply to reprisal complaints under Part VI.

The employer's motion was dismissed, and the complaint was allowed to proceed.

The complainant, an Operational Manager, filed a grievance alleging the employer breached his employment contract by treating him unfairly and arbitrarily in its handling of a subordinate's harassment complaints and grievances against him.

The employer settled the subordinate's grievances by reassigning the complainant without providing him timely notice of the allegations or an opportunity to respond.

The complainant subsequently left the workplace due to the resulting poisoned work environment and stress.

The Public Service Grievance Board found the employer breached its duty of fairness and acted arbitrarily.

The Board awarded the complainant compensation for lost overtime and pay-for-performance, as well as $5,000 in damages for mental distress resulting from the breach of procedural fairness provisions in his employment contract.

The employer raised a preliminary objection arguing that the Public Service Grievance Board lacked jurisdiction over the complaints because the complainant failed to give proper notice to his Deputy Minister as required by section 8 of Ontario Regulation 378/07.

The complainant conceded that he had not given the required notice but argued the objection should be dismissed due to the employer's failure to comply with a procedural undertaking.

The Board held that notice to the Deputy Minister is an essential precondition for jurisdiction.

As the required notice was not given, the complainant was not eligible to file the complaints, and they were dismissed.

The employer brought a motion to dismiss the complainant's grievance after the complainant failed to attend a scheduled conference call hearing.

The complainant argued he was ill and unable to participate, but failed to provide adequate medical evidence despite previous warnings from the Board regarding the requirements for medical adjournments.

The Board found the complainant's explanations lacked credibility and granted the employer's motion, dismissing the complaint.

The complainant, who was off on sick leave, disputed whether the employer's proposed return-to-work plan met her medical restrictions.

She requested that the employer facilitate and pay for a review of the plan by the physician who had previously conducted an Independent Medical Examination.

The employer argued that the duty to accommodate did not require it to initiate and pay for medical approval of a plan it considered appropriate.

The Public Service Grievance Board held that the employer's duty to accommodate is ongoing and includes taking reasonable steps to ensure a return-to-work plan meets the employee's restrictions, especially when genuine concerns are raised.

The Board directed the employer to facilitate the requested review or take other measures to ensure the assignment met the restrictions.

The complainant, who was self-represented, disputed the employer's implementation of a grievance settlement, arguing that the employer improperly made statutory deductions from a portion of the settlement characterized as wages.

The complainant contended that the settlement did not explicitly state that deductions would be made and alleged that the employer intentionally misled her.

The Public Service Grievance Board found that the employer was legally required to make statutory deductions from wages, regardless of whether it was explicitly stated in the settlement.

The Board concluded there was no evidence of improper conduct or misrepresentation by the employer and dismissed the complainant's request for further direction or a hearing.

The complainant filed a grievance alleging improper removal from a temporary acting assignment and exclusion from a permanent position competition due to racial bias.

The complaint was filed under Part VI of the Public Service of Ontario Act, which deals with reprisals for disclosing wrongdoing.

The employer raised preliminary objections, arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction under Part VI because there was no allegation of reprisal, and alternatively, that the complaint failed to meet the statutory preconditions for a regular terms and conditions grievance under O. Reg. 378/07.

The Board agreed, finding no reprisal occurred to ground jurisdiction under Part VI, and that the mandatory notice and dispute resolution preconditions for a regular grievance were bypassed.

The complaint was dismissed.

The complainant filed a grievance alleging that his performance appraisal and the subsequent denial of merit pay, which relied on a prior letter of reprimand, were too harsh.

The employer brought a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction under s. 4(2) of Regulation 378/07, which prohibits complaints about performance evaluations and compensation based on performance.

The complainant argued that relying on the reprimand for the appraisal amounted to double jeopardy.

The Board held that it lacked jurisdiction, finding that the denial of a merit increase is an administrative decision and does not constitute a second discipline for the same offence.

The grievance was dismissed.

The parties appeared before the Public Service Grievance Board to schedule the hearing of three grievances.

The parties agreed to consolidate the grievances for the purpose of dealing with the employer's preliminary motions.

The Board scheduled the preliminary motions for October 5, 2011, and set deadlines for the exchange of motion materials and the complainant's response.

The employer brought preliminary objections to dismiss the complainant's grievance concerning changes to his pay.

The employer argued that the Board lacked jurisdiction over complaints regarding the pro-rating of a pay-for-performance award and the retroactive implementation of a pay-for-performance policy, and that the remaining complaint regarding deductions for an alleged overpayment was untimely.

The Board upheld the jurisdictional objection, finding that the pay-for-performance complaints were excluded from its jurisdiction under Regulation 977.

However, the Board dismissed the timeliness objection regarding the overpayment deductions, finding that the employer had waived its right to object by participating in the grievance process for nearly three years without raising the issue.

The complainant argued that the employer should pay employees who attend Public Service Grievance Board hearings on behalf of a complainant, either as representatives, advisors, or witnesses not under subpoena, in the same manner as employees acting for the employer.

The Board found that the complainant was entitled to choose an option under section 44 of the Compensation Directive because he had received a summons.

However, the Board rejected the broader argument, holding that parties are primarily responsible for their own costs and there is no obligation on the employer to remunerate employees participating on behalf of a complainant beyond what is expressly provided in the Directive.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Public Service Grievance Board.

The parties agreed to a decision without precedent or prejudice and without providing reasons.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the employer's preliminary motion and granted the grievance, awarding the remedy sought by the grievor in oral submissions.

The applicant brought a motion alleging that the employer failed to comply with a settlement agreement and that the agreement contained illegal elements by contracting out of statutory entitlements under the Employment Standards Act.

The applicant sought statutory severance pay, pay in lieu of notice, and damages.

The Public Service Grievance Board found the settlement agreement to be clear, unambiguous, and enforceable.

The Board held that the applicant had released the employer from all claims and that there was no illegality in the agreement.

The motion was dismissed.