OPSGB 2016

The complainant, a Sergeant at the Ottawa Carlton Detention Centre, filed a complaint alleging the employer failed to properly compensate him for standby and on-call pay between January 2015 and January 2016.

The Public Service Grievance Board noted that the complainant did not send a notice of proposal to file a complaint until May 2016, well beyond the mandatory 14-day time limit under O. Reg. 378/07.

After the complainant failed to respond to the Board's request for submissions on the timeliness issue, the Board dismissed the complaint without a hearing for lack of jurisdiction.

The complainant filed a complaint alleging the employer failed to properly compensate him for standby and on-call pay.

The Public Service Grievance Board dismissed the complaint without a hearing because the complainant failed to provide a notice of proposal to file a complaint within the mandatory 14-day time limit prescribed by O. Reg. 378/07.

The conduct complained of ended in January 2016, but the notice was not sent until April 2016.

The complainant, a Sergeant at the Ottawa Carlton Detention Centre, filed a complaint alleging the employer failed to properly compensate him for standby and on-call pay between January 2015 and January 2016.

The Public Service Grievance Board dismissed the complaint without a hearing because the complainant failed to provide a Notice of proposal to file a complaint within the mandatory 14-day time limit prescribed by O. Reg. 378/07.

The Board found it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the untimely complaint.

The complainant, a Sergeant at the Ottawa Carlton Detention Centre, filed a complaint alleging the employer failed to properly compensate him for standby and on-call pay between January 2015 and January 2016.

The Public Service Grievance Board dismissed the complaint without a hearing because the complainant failed to provide a notice of proposal to file a complaint within the mandatory 14-day time limit prescribed by O. Reg. 378/07.

The conduct complained of ended in January 2016, but the notice was not sent until April 2016.

The complainant filed a grievance alleging the employer failed to properly compensate her for standby and on-call pay.

The Public Service Grievance Board found that the complainant failed to file a Notice of proposal to file a complaint within the mandatory 14-day time limit under O. Reg. 378/07.

As the Board has no discretion to relieve against this time limit, the complaint was dismissed without a hearing.

The complainant, a Sergeant at the Ottawa Carlton Detention Centre, filed a complaint alleging the employer failed to properly compensate her for standby and on-call pay between January 2015 and January 2016.

The Public Service Grievance Board dismissed the complaint without a hearing because the complainant failed to provide a Notice of proposal to file a complaint within the mandatory 14-day time limit prescribed by O. Reg. 378/07.

The Board found it had no jurisdiction to entertain the untimely complaint.

The complainant, a Sergeant at the Ottawa Carlton Detention Centre, filed a complaint alleging the employer failed to properly compensate her for standby and on-call pay.

The employer argued the complaint was untimely.

The Public Service Grievance Board found that the complainant failed to provide a notice of proposal to file a complaint within the mandatory 14-day time limit under O. Reg. 378/07.

As the Board has no discretion to relieve against this mandatory time limit, it lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter.

The complaint was dismissed without a hearing.

The complainant challenged a 20-day disciplinary suspension.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the complaint because the complainant failed to give notice of his intention to complain within the mandatory 14-day period prescribed by section 8(4) of Regulation 378/07 under the Public Service of Ontario Act.

The Board held that compliance with the time limits is a strict precondition to its jurisdiction and it has no discretion to relieve against them.

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

The Complainant challenged her dismissal without cause, alleging bad faith, discrimination on the basis of disability, and reprisal for disclosure of wrongdoing under the Public Service of Ontario Act.

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

The Complainant requested extensive document production to respond to the motion.

The Board ordered the Employer to produce documents relevant to whether a disclosure of wrongdoing occurred, as this was intertwined with the preliminary motion.

However, the Board denied production of documents relevant only to the merits of the discrimination claim at this stage.

The complainant filed an application alleging he was improperly terminated due to a disability.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the Board lacked jurisdiction because the complainant was employed on a fixed-term contract on an irregular or on-call basis.

The Board reviewed the employment records and schedules, confirming the complainant's status as an irregular, fixed-term employee.

Under subsection 5(2)5 of O. Reg. 378/07, such employees are not eligible to file a complaint.

Consequently, the Board found it had no jurisdiction and dismissed the application.

The complainant, an Operational Manager who was later promoted to Deputy Superintendent, filed a grievance seeking to have a 5% management salary increase applied to his Deputy Superintendent rate rather than his previous classification rate.

He argued he was being paid less than other Deputy Superintendents performing the same work.

The Public Service Grievance Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the 5% increase was a one-time adjustment effective April 1, 2015, at which time the complainant was still in his previous classification.

The Board held it lacked jurisdiction to grant salary parity based on fairness, as there was no breach of an existing term or condition of employment.

The complainant was terminated from his employment and sought to file a complaint with the Public Service Grievance Board.

Shortly before the statutory deadline to file, the complainant's lawyer passed away.

The complainant notified the employer that he was seeking new counsel but did not file the complaint until after the 14-day limitation period expired.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the complaint was out of time.

The Board held that under Regulation 378/07, it no longer has the statutory authority to extend time limits, making compliance a strict precondition to jurisdiction.

The Board also rejected the complainant's argument that the employer's sympathetic response to the lawyer's death constituted an estoppel or waiver of the time limits.

The complaint was dismissed.

The complainant, a Sergeant at a correctional centre, filed a grievance alleging he was placed 'on call' without compensation from January 2015 to January 2016 due to delayed vacation approvals and requirements to provide contact information during a labour dispute.

The Public Service Grievance Board found that the employer's delay in approving vacations was a reasonable exercise of management discretion and did not place the complainant on call for the entire year.

However, the Board held that the employer's explicit requirement for the complainant to provide a contact number and remain available for recall during his approved vacation periods constituted being 'on call' under the Compensation Directive.

The grievance was allowed in part, and the complainant was awarded on-call pay for hours outside his regularly scheduled work periods during approved vacations, less any stand-by pay already received.

The complainants, Operational Managers who had been on acting assignments as Deputy Superintendents, filed a complaint seeking compensation for on-call duties performed during their assignments.

The employer raised preliminary objections regarding timeliness and jurisdiction.

The Public Service Grievance Board found that the notice of proposal to file a complaint was filed well beyond the mandatory 14-day time limit set out in Regulation 378/07, as the complainants were aware of the working conditions at the outset of their assignments.

The Board dismissed the complaint as untimely, noting that even if timely, the complainants had effectively waived their right to claim compensation by accepting the terms without challenge during the assignment.

The complainant filed an application that was scheduled for mediation.

The employer advised it had no position to mediate.

To avoid delay, the Vice-Chair directed that the matter be set down for arbitration and issued interim orders requiring the complainant to provide particulars and documentary material, and the employer to provide its documentary material and a response to the application.

The complainant filed an application with the Public Service Grievance Board.

The employer advised it had no position to mediate and requested the matter proceed to arbitration.

The Vice-Chair directed the matter be set down for arbitration, noting it would be an inefficient use of resources to schedule mediation.

The Vice-Chair also issued interim orders directing the complainant to provide any remaining particulars and documentary material, and directing the employer to provide its documentary material and response to the application.