OPSGB 2018

The employer brought a preliminary objection arguing the Public Service Grievance Board lacked jurisdiction to hear the complainant's grievance regarding the assignment of Sergeant COM1 duties during his on-call rotation.

The employer argued the complaint was essentially about job classification, which is excluded from the Board's jurisdiction under Regulation 378/07.

The Board dismissed the objection, finding that a complaint about being assigned work outside one's classification is distinct from a complaint about being assigned to a certain classification.

The Board also rejected the employer's argument that the complainant was improperly expanding the grounds of his complaint to include health and safety concerns, noting these were raised in the initial application.

The Employer raised a preliminary objection regarding a group complaint filed before the Public Service Grievance Board, arguing that three of the four named complainants had not filed a required notice of proposal under section 8 of O. Reg. 378/07.

The Board directed the individuals to provide evidence of their notices.

After receiving no valid notices of proposal from the three individuals, the Board found that filing a notice is an essential pre-condition for jurisdiction.

Consequently, the Board removed the three individuals as named parties to the complaint, leaving only the original complainant.

The complainant requested an adjournment of a scheduled hearing for three disciplinary complaints, asserting an inability to attend for medical reasons.

The employer opposed the request, noting that four prior hearing dates had already been adjourned and the complaints were over four years old.

The Board directed the complainant to provide sufficient and reliable medical evidence from a treating health care professional to support the adjournment request by a specified date, failing which the hearing would proceed as scheduled.

The complainant requested an adjournment of a scheduled hearing date due to medical reasons.

The Employer opposed the request, arguing the medical evidence was insufficient.

The Board found the medical notes provided sufficient to warrant adjourning the oral hearing.

However, the Board noted the complainant had been able to submit written documents and participate in a limited fashion.

The Board directed the complainant to respond to specific factual assertions made by the Employer regarding the timeliness of two of his complaints, or provide more compelling medical evidence explaining his inability to do so.

The complainant filed a complaint challenging a 15-day suspension.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the complaint was untimely.

The Board found that the complaint was filed two days before the expiration of the mandatory 30-day dispute resolution period under section 9 of Ontario Regulation 378/07.

As compliance with the time limits is mandatory, the Board concluded it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and dismissed it.

The complainant, a senior planner, filed two complaints against his employer.

The first alleged that a finding of conflict of interest and subsequent reassignment constituted unjustified discipline and a breach of procedural fairness.

The second alleged that these actions were a reprisal for his 2010 disclosure of wrongdoing.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the complaints as moot because the complainant had since left the public service.

The Board dismissed the mootness motion, finding a live controversy remained regarding the complainant's professional reputation.

On the merits, the Board found that the employer breached its duty of fairness by failing to give the complainant an opportunity to respond before making the conflict of interest finding and disciplinary transfer.

The Board concluded the complainant was not in a conflict of interest and did not engage in an improper outside undertaking, though he did breach a 2010 direction to seek guidance before speaking publicly.

The reprisal complaint was dismissed due to a lack of causal connection to the 2010 disclosure.

The Board ordered the removal of the conflict of interest finding and disciplinary transfer from the complainant's employment record.

The complainant, a civilian manager with the OPP, sought interim relief pending the arbitration of his complaint regarding a paid suspension and alleged workplace misconduct by his superiors.

He requested reimbursement for travel expenses related to a secondment, the suspension of the individuals he accused of misconduct, and payment of his legal fees.

The Public Service Grievance Board denied the request, finding that the complainant failed to establish that the extraordinary remedy of interim relief was warranted.

The Board noted that its remedial powers would be sufficient to fashion an appropriate remedy following a full hearing on the merits if the complaint succeeds.

The complainant, a correctional officer, alleged that the employer prevented her from accessing long-term disability benefits by failing to complete and submit required documents to the insurance carrier.

The Public Service Grievance Board found that the employer had submitted the necessary "Employer's Statement" and that the delay and subsequent closure of the claim were due to the complainant's own failure to submit the required "Employee's Statement".

The complaint was dismissed for lack of evidence supporting the allegations against the employer.

The complainant filed a grievance alleging the employer failed to accommodate her request for a modified shift schedule based on a medical condition.

The employer asserted it had met its duty to accommodate and raised a preliminary objection regarding the timeliness of the complaint under Regulation 378/07 of the Public Service of Ontario Act, 2016.

Following an initial mediation session, the Board issued an interim decision directing the parties to exchange specific documents and authorities, and scheduled a further mediation session to be followed immediately by an arbitration hearing on the preliminary objection if mediation fails.

The complainant, an Operational Manager at a detention centre, was terminated for failing to properly intervene in an inmate-on-inmate assault and for failing to complete compatibility assessments.

The employer argued his lack of action and poor judgment warranted discharge.

The Public Service Grievance Board found that while the complainant's failure to take control of the situation and repeat his direction to open the cell door was serious misconduct, he was not solely responsible.

Applying the McKinley factors, the Board concluded that the employment relationship could be repaired given the complainant's discipline-free record, insight, and remorse.

The termination was substituted with a six-month unpaid suspension and reinstatement.

The complainant, a Sergeant with 26 years of service, was terminated for fabricating and submitting false receipts for relocation expenses.

The complainant admitted to creating some receipts and his spouse created others, which included forged signatures and appropriated business names.

The complainant claimed he was following advice to create a 'paper trail' for cash payments to individuals who were not registered businesses.

The Public Service Grievance Board found the complainant's actions were deliberate, deceitful, and motivated by a sense of entitlement to maximum benefits rather than actual expenses incurred.

Given the complainant's failure to take responsibility and his lack of candour during the investigation and hearing, the Board concluded the employment relationship was irreparably severed and upheld the termination.

The employer raised a preliminary objection regarding the timeliness of the complaint.

The matter was scheduled for an oral hearing, but the complainant requested a last-minute adjournment due to a scheduling mistake.

The employer agreed to the adjournment but requested the hearing proceed in writing.

The Board found the complainant's explanation fell short but granted the adjournment, directing the complainant to provide written submissions responding to the employer's preliminary objection.

The complainant filed a grievance contesting a five-day disciplinary suspension.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the complaint was filed outside the mandatory 14-day time limit set out in Regulation 378/07 under the Public Service of Ontario Act.

The complainant argued that his suspension, work schedule, and health issues prevented him from filing on time.

The Public Service Grievance Board held that the time limits are mandatory and it lacks jurisdiction to relieve against a failure to comply.

The preliminary objection was upheld and the complaint was dismissed.

The parties attended a mediation session which failed to resolve the complaint.

The Employer requested the Board to address its preliminary objection that the complaint was not filed within the notice period required by Ontario Regulation 378/07.

Acknowledging the Complainant needed more time to respond, the Board directed that a teleconference hearing be scheduled solely to hear oral submissions on the timeliness objection.

The complainant requested a change of venue for a scheduled mediation session from Toronto to London, Ontario, citing medical reasons and an ongoing WSIB matter.

The employer opposed the request, suggesting a teleconference instead.

The Public Service Grievance Board granted the complainant's request, finding that holding the mediation in Toronto would result in unreasonable expense and inconvenience under Practice Note #3.

The Board ordered the mediation to proceed in person in London.

The Public Service Grievance Board issued an addendum to a preliminary decision following a teleconference with the parties.

The Board directed that the upcoming hearing proceed via teleconference, with the initial stage involving mediation.

If mediation proves unsuccessful, the parties are directed to address the employer's preliminary objection regarding the timeliness of the complaint.

The Board also set deadlines for the exchange of documents and authorities.

The complainant filed three complaints alleging the employer withheld documents related to a long-term disability claim, failed to accommodate her, and engaged in workplace harassment.

Following an unsuccessful mediation, the Public Service Grievance Board issued preliminary directions requiring the parties to exchange documents and submissions regarding the disability claim, and scheduled a conference call to determine the next steps for all complaints.

The complainant, a Sergeant, filed a complaint with the Public Service Grievance Board alleging excessive discipline.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the complaint was filed prematurely under O. Reg. 378/07.

The Board found that the complaint was filed three days before the expiry of the mandatory 30-day dispute resolution period.

As the statutory timelines are mandatory and the Board has no discretion to relieve against them, the Board concluded it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the complaint.

The Employer raised a preliminary objection that the complainant's grievance regarding workplace discipline was filed out of time under Regulation 378/07 of the Public Service of Ontario Act, 2006.

The Board directed the complainant to respond, but the complainant requested an adjournment because his representative was unavailable for medical reasons.

The Board granted the adjournment, noting it had inadvertently failed to copy the complainant on its earlier direction, and ordered the complainant to file a written response to the timeliness objection by a specified date.

The complainant filed a grievance alleging his position was made redundant, resulting in an improper reassignment or constructive dismissal.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the reassignment and performance evaluation were not reviewable by the Public Service Grievance Board.

Following an unsuccessful mediation session, the Board issued a preliminary decision setting a schedule for the parties to file written submissions on the employer's jurisdictional objection.