OPSGB 2018

The complainant, a correctional manager previously reinstated without compensation following a discharge for mismanaging a use of force incident, filed a new complaint seeking compensation and alleging discrimination, bias, and misconduct by employer counsel.

The employer brought a motion to dismiss the new claims.

The Public Service Grievance Board dismissed the new complaint, finding that the overarching issue of the discharge had already been decided in a prior hearing and the doctrine of res judicata applied.

The Board held that the new evidence alleged by the complainant would not have changed the result of the prior decision.

Furthermore, the Board dismissed the allegations against employer counsel, finding them barred by the doctrine of absolute privilege.

The complainant failed to attend a scheduled mediation before the Public Service Grievance Board.

The employer attended and made submissions.

The Vice-Chair directed that the matter be rescheduled for med/arb and ordered the complainant to provide full written particulars of his complaints at least 60 days prior to the next scheduled date.

The employer reserved the right to seek dismissal if the complainant fails to attend the rescheduled date.

The complainant, a public servant, filed a complaint contesting a two-day disciplinary suspension.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the complaint was untimely under Regulation 378/07 of the Public Service of Ontario Act.

The complainant received notice of the suspension on June 30, 2017, but did not file his formal notice of complaint until July 21, 2017, exceeding the mandatory 14-day time limit.

The Board held that the time limits are mandatory and it lacks jurisdiction to extend them.

The employer's preliminary objection was upheld and the complaint was dismissed.

The complainant filed a reprisal complaint alleging that the employer's written submissions in a previous proceeding before the Board were prejudicial and constituted an act of reprisal.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the complaint.

The Board held that the statements made by the employer in its legal pleadings were protected by absolute legal privilege and could not form the basis of a reprisal complaint.

The complaint was dismissed.