OPSGB 2015

The complainant sought a lump sum payment for 2014 and 2015, alleging the employer acted in bad faith by failing to disclose that such payments were part of regular compensation before he signed Minutes of Settlement regarding his dismissal.

The employer brought a preliminary objection to dismiss the complaint, arguing the settlement foreclosed the claim.

The Public Service Grievance Board found no basis for the bad faith allegation, as the complainant had received such payments previously and was free to negotiate their inclusion.

The Board upheld the clear language of the settlement releasing the employer from further claims and dismissed the complaint.

The complainant, a retired public servant, filed a complaint claiming entitlement to a lump sum pay-for-performance payment for the 2014 fiscal year.

The employer raised a preliminary objection, arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction because the complainant was no longer a public servant at the time of filing and had not been employed continuously for six months prior to the notice deadline.

The Public Service Grievance Board upheld the preliminary objection, finding that under the Public Service of Ontario Act and O. Reg. 378/07, only current public servants can file grievances regarding terms and conditions of employment.

The complaint was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The complainant filed a grievance alleging that the employer violated its performance management policy during his performance evaluation.

The employer argued that the Public Service Grievance Board lacked jurisdiction to hear the complaint.

The Board dismissed the complaint without a hearing, finding that section 4(2) of Ontario Regulation 378/07 explicitly prohibits complaints regarding the evaluation of a public servant's performance or the method of evaluating performance.

The complainant filed a grievance against the employer.

Following multiple interim decisions directing the complainant to provide appropriate medical documentation to support a request for hearing accommodation, the complainant failed to comply by the deadline.

Instead, the complainant sent an email withdrawing the complaint.

The Public Service Grievance Board accepted the withdrawal and terminated the proceedings.

The complainant requested that the Board vary its prior interim decision, which required him to provide more fulsome medical evidence to support his request for an adjournment and accommodation based on disability.

The complainant asserted that confidentiality issues precluded the provision of further medical evidence and requested a file review decision.

The Board dismissed the request to vary, finding no basis to reconsider its earlier decision and noting that confidentiality does not preclude providing medical documentation if consent is given.

The employer's request to dismiss the complaint in its entirety was deferred, and the complainant was directed to comply with the prior directions by the specified deadline.

The complainant grieved the employer's refusal to pay relocation expenses after he was granted a compassionate transfer to a new detention centre.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the complaint for failing to disclose a prima facie case.

The Public Service Grievance Board allowed the motion and dismissed the grievance, finding that the transfer was employee-requested and did not fall within the recruitment activity exception of the Relocation Expenses Directive.

As no term or condition of employment was violated, the Board had no jurisdiction to grant the requested remedy.

The complainant, a Health Care Manager at a detention centre, was discharged for cause following an investigation into numerous performance deficiencies, including medication errors, failure to secure methadone, and administrative backlog.

She argued the discharge was excessive due to a toxic work environment, understaffing, and lack of progressive discipline.

The Public Service Grievance Board dismissed the complaint, finding that while the employer shared some responsibility for the difficult working conditions, the complainant's serious and repeated failures in judgment, particularly regarding medication control and documentation, irreparably damaged the bond of trust necessary for her managerial role in a correctional setting.

The complainant requested that his grievance hearing be conducted by telephone conference due to medical reasons.

The employer objected, arguing the medical note provided was insufficient and that an in-person hearing was necessary to properly respond to the complaint.

The Board found the medical note insufficient as it did not clearly identify the basis for the complainant's inability to attend in person or how the risk of decompensation could be managed.

The Board adjourned the hearing and directed the complainant to provide a more fulsome medical report and a full statement of facts.

The complainant requested that a scheduled mediation be held in London, while the employer requested it be held in Toronto at the Board's offices in accordance with Practice Note #3.

The complainant argued it was unfair for the employer to insist on Toronto when employer representatives are reimbursed for travel expenses and he is not.

The Board found no basis to depart from its general rule that mediations are scheduled in Toronto unless it results in unreasonable expense and inconvenience, noting that the employer's reimbursement of its representatives is irrelevant.

The mediation was ordered to proceed in Toronto.

The complainant requested disclosure of documents in the employer's custody, to which the employer agreed.

The parties sought an order from the Public Service Grievance Board regarding the disclosure.

The Board ordered that the disclosed documents be used solely for the litigation, not be disseminated to unauthorized persons, and be returned at the conclusion of the litigation, subject to counsel's retention of their litigation file.

The complainant, a public service manager, grieved the calculation of his lump sum maintenance payments for 2012 and subsequent years.

He argued that because he had been in a higher-rated acting assignment for part of the 2010-2011 fiscal year, his subsequent maintenance payments during a period of wage restraint should have been calculated as if the acting assignment had never occurred, yielding a higher pro-rated amount for his home position.

The Public Service Grievance Board dismissed the complaint, finding that while the complainant's position was supported by general equities and pre-2011 policies, the strict wording of the post-2011 compensation policies limited the maintenance payment to an amount 'up to' the actual lump sum paid in respect of the 2010-2011 performance cycle.

The complainant requested a telephone hearing as an accommodation for a disability, asserting he was unable to attend a physical hearing in Toronto.

The employer opposed the request, noting the lack of medical documentation.

The Public Service Grievance Board denied the request for a telephone hearing, directing that the matter be scheduled in the normal course.

The Board held that any request for accommodation of its processes on the basis of disability must be supported by appropriate and sufficient medical documentation outlining the restrictions and limitations.

The complainants, Operational Managers, filed grievances alleging unauthorized pay deductions in breach of a prior settlement.

The employer brought a motion to dismiss the complaints as moot, arguing that the complainants had since been paid for the dates worked and the parties agreed on the application of the settlement's procedural provisions.

The Board applied the Borowski test for mootness and found that the underlying dispute regarding pay and policy claims had been resolved.

The Board declined to award damages or costs, finding no basis for such remedies, and terminated the proceedings.

The complainants, a group of managers, filed a complaint alleging that compensation was applied unequally and unfairly when managers at the top of their pay grade received lump sum payments while others did not.

The employer argued that the complaint related to pay for performance, which is excluded from the Board's jurisdiction.

The Board dismissed the complaint without a hearing, finding that the dispute was fundamentally about the denial of pay for performance and therefore beyond its statutory jurisdiction.

The Board also found no viable claim for unequal pay for equal work under applicable legislation.

The complainant, a manager under the Management Compensation Plan, filed a grievance alleging inequity and arbitrary employer action after he did not receive a lump sum performance payment in 2011/2012 and 2012/2013.

The employer had instituted a wage freeze but provided lump sum payments to certain managers at the top of their pay grade to prevent a reduction in their earnings.

The Public Service Grievance Board dismissed the complaint without a hearing under Rule 11, finding that complaints regarding performance-related pay are excluded from its jurisdiction by regulation.

Furthermore, the complainant failed to establish a prima facie case that the denial of the lump sum breached any existing term or condition of his employment.

The complainants, managers in the Ontario Public Service, filed group complaints alleging unequal and unfair administration of compensation for the 2011/12 and 2012/13 fiscal years.

They argued that lump sum payments given only to managers at the top of their pay grade violated principles of fairness and equal pay.

The employer requested the complaints be dismissed for lack of remedial jurisdiction.

The Public Service Grievance Board dismissed the complaints without a hearing, finding that the claims related to the denial of pay for performance, which is explicitly excluded from the Board's jurisdiction under Regulation 378/07.

The Board also held that it lacked authority to set new terms and conditions of employment or to apply bargaining unit terms to managers.