OPSGB 2014

The complainants, Operational Managers, filed complaints regarding salary compression with Correctional Officers and wage disparity compared to rehired retired managers.

The employer raised a preliminary objection, arguing the Public Service Grievance Board lacked jurisdiction to grant the requested remedies, which would require setting new terms and conditions of employment.

The Board agreed, finding no existing policy, legislation, or contractual term that provided for the compensation sought.

The complaints were dismissed for want of a prima facie case, as the Board has no authority to set wages or compensation.

The complainant, an Operational Manager at a detention centre, received a seven-day suspension for failing to report a food spillage incident in a timely manner.

He filed a grievance contesting the discipline, but the employer raised a preliminary objection that the notice to the Deputy Minister was filed outside the 14-day time limit prescribed by Regulation 378/07.

The complainant argued that the time limits should not apply because his discipline was a reprisal for reporting wrongdoing under Part VI of the Public Service of Ontario Act.

The Public Service Grievance Board held that it lacked the statutory authority to extend the time limits for a terms and conditions complaint.

Furthermore, the Board found that the complainant's occurrence reports did not constitute a disclosure of wrongdoing as defined in the Act, nor were they made in accordance with the statutory procedures.

Consequently, the complaint was dismissed.

The complainant, a Field Intelligence Officer, filed a grievance alleging the employer violated its Pay on Assignment Policy by failing to provide a promotional increase when he was appointed to a restructured position with increased responsibilities.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the complaint for want of a prima facie case.

The Public Service Grievance Board granted the motion, finding that the complainant remained in the same classification, meaning the assignment did not meet the policy's definition of a promotion.

Furthermore, the Board lacked jurisdiction to reclassify the position or award higher pay based on comparisons to bargaining unit employees.

The complainant filed a grievance claiming relocation expenses after voluntarily taking a job trade from Sudbury to Brockville to avoid involuntary reassignment during downsizing.

Shortly after his move, temporary positions opened at his former location, which were not offered to him.

He alleged the employer breached organizational values of trust and fairness.

The Public Service Grievance Board dismissed the complaint, finding no breach of any term or condition of employment, as the relocation policy explicitly excluded employee-requested moves and the employer's actions were consistent with its operational commitments.

The complainants, non-bargaining unit employees covered by the Management Compensation Plan, filed a grievance regarding the employer's decision to pay a lump sum to employees at the maximum of their salary range while denying it to others during a wage freeze year.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the complaint related to pay for performance and was therefore outside the Board's jurisdiction under O. Reg. 378/07.

The Board agreed, finding that the complaint was essentially about the denial of pay for performance and a request to set new terms and conditions of employment, both of which are beyond its statutory authority.

The complaint was dismissed.

The complainant, a Probation Manager, filed a grievance alleging that the employer violated the terms and conditions of her employment by denying pay for performance during the 2011/2012 fiscal year wage freeze.

The employer raised a preliminary objection, arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction.

The Public Service Grievance Board upheld the employer's objection, finding that O. Reg. 378/07 explicitly excludes complaints regarding compensation provided or denied as a result of performance evaluation.

The Board also noted it lacked the authority to set new terms and conditions of employment, and dismissed the complaint.

The complainants, four Operational Managers, requested further direction regarding the implementation of a previous Board decision that declared the reduction of their rank title to Sergeant to be of no force and effect.

The complainants alleged the employer was not complying with the Board's directions regarding their participation in the consultation process.

The Board found that the employer's actions, including providing timelines for written submissions and an opportunity to present to the Operational Managers' Standing Committee, complied with its previous orders.

The Board reiterated that reducing the rank to Sergeant again would not be a valid alternative consistent with the complainants' terms and conditions of employment.

The employer requested an extension of time to implement a previous Board decision that declared a unilateral change to the complainants' rank titles and uniforms to be of no force and effect.

The employer sought additional time to engage in systematic consultation with Operational Managers across the province.

The complainants consented to the consultation but opposed delaying the return to their previous rank and uniform.

The Board granted the extension to May 31, 2014, to allow for a considered, provincial resolution, and ordered that the complainants be permitted a formal role in the consultation process.

The complainant, an Operational Manager at a detention centre, was dismissed for cause following three incidents, including failing to report a subordinate's excessive use of force and personally using excessive force by kicking a meal hatch on an inmate's arm.

The Public Service Grievance Board found that while the complainant's serious lapses in judgment justified discipline and irreparably damaged the employment relationship, dismissal without any compensation was too severe given his long, exemplary service and the difficult job market.

Because the complainant had applied force to a vulnerable person, the Board was statutorily barred from reinstating him to his former position.

The Board awarded compensation in lieu of reinstatement equivalent to 24 months' wages and benefits.

Three Operational Managers filed complaints alleging the employer breached a confidential memorandum of settlement by paying the settlement monies three days late.

The settlement required payment within 60 days.

The employer argued that based on business days, the payment was on time, or alternatively, the breach was minimal.

The Board found that 'days' in the settlement meant calendar days, resulting in a three-day breach.

The Board ordered the employer to pay three days of interest on the settlement monies, rejecting the complainants' request for $15,000 in damages and the full remedy sought in their original grievances.