OPSGB 2020

The complainant filed a complaint regarding the assignment of his pay for performance rating.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the Public Service Grievance Board lacked jurisdiction to hear the complaint under Ontario Regulation 378/07, which excludes matters relating to performance evaluation and resulting compensation.

After providing the complainant an opportunity to make written submissions, which were not received, the Board dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction.

Ten managers filed complaints challenging the employer's decision to downgrade their performance ratings, which resulted in the denial of merit pay.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the Public Service Grievance Board lacked jurisdiction to hear the complaints under section 4(2) of Ontario Regulation 378/07, which excludes complaints about performance evaluations and resulting compensation.

The Board upheld the preliminary objection, finding that the complaints fundamentally concerned pay for performance and were excluded from its jurisdiction, even where the employer's actions were alleged to be arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith.

The complaints were dismissed, except for the portions alleging violations of the Human Rights Code, which the Board retained jurisdiction to consider.

The complainant, an Operational Manager, alleged she was improperly paid compared to male co-workers and sought a retroactive pay increase.

The employer raised preliminary objections that the complaint did not disclose a violation of a term of employment and was filed outside the statutory timelines.

The Public Service Grievance Board found that the complainant was seeking to create a new term of employment rather than enforce an existing one, and that the complaint was filed 18 months after her promotion, well beyond the 14-day statutory limit.

The complaint was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The complainant filed a complaint contesting an 8-hour suspension.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the complaint was filed outside the mandatory 14-day time limit under Regulation 378/07.

The central issue was whether the dispute resolution period expired when the employer emailed its decision ('given') or when the complainant returned to work and read it ('received').

Applying the modern principle of statutory interpretation, the Board held that notice was 'given' when it was sent to and received in the complainant's inbox, making the complaint two days late.

The complaint was dismissed as untimely.

The employer raised a preliminary objection to the complainant's complaint regarding her dismissal for cause, arguing it was filed prematurely under Regulation 378/07 of the Public Service of Ontario Act.

The employer contended the 30-day dispute resolution period had not expired when the complaint was filed.

The Board applied the modern principle of statutory interpretation and found that the dispute resolution period ended on the date the complainant reasonably understood based on the employer's communications.

The Board concluded the complaint was filed in a timely manner and dismissed the employer's preliminary objection.

The Public Service Grievance Board directed the employer to remove the complainant's name from the tracking protocol within fourteen days.

The Vice-Chair remained seized of any issues concerning the implementation of the order.

The complainant requested an adjournment of a scheduled mediation due to Covid-19 restrictions preventing an in-person process, and opposed proceeding by written submissions.

The employer agreed to adjourn the mediation but requested that its preliminary objection regarding the timeliness of the complaint be addressed via written submissions.

The Vice Chair adjourned the mediation and directed the parties to exchange written statements of fact regarding the timeliness issue to determine the appropriate next steps.

The employer raised a preliminary objection arguing that the Public Service Grievance Board lacked jurisdiction to hear complaints from 13 senior managers regarding the removal of their salary allowances.

The employer contended the complaints were disguised classification grievances, which are excluded from the Board's jurisdiction under Regulation 378/07.

The Board dismissed the objection, finding that the complainants were disputing the removal of a specific aspect of their remuneration, not seeking to be assigned to a different classification.

The complaints will proceed to be heard on their merits.

The complainants filed grievances challenging the employer's alteration of their performance ratings and associated compensation.

The employer raised a preliminary objection asserting that the Public Service Grievance Board lacks jurisdiction to entertain the complaints pursuant to section 4(2) of Ontario Regulation 378/07.

Due to COVID-19 restrictions preventing in-person hearings, the Board issued an interim decision establishing a timetable for the parties to file written submissions regarding the jurisdictional objection.

The complainants, senior managers in Aviation Services, filed grievances alleging that the employer improperly removed a salary allowance they had been receiving since 2014.

The employer argued that it was within its rights to issue a directive incorporating the allowances into base salaries under a new compensation plan.

The Public Service Grievance Board found that the salary allowance was a specific term and condition of the complainants' individual employment contracts.

The employer's unilateral removal of the allowance without consent constituted a breach of those terms and conditions.

The matter was remitted to the parties to determine an appropriate remedy.

The complainant, an Operational Manager, brought a motion for the production of documents related to a 2017 job competition.

He alleged that he was unfairly denied developmental and promotional opportunities for discriminatory reasons and was the target of workplace harassment.

The Public Service Grievance Board granted the motion in part, ordering the employer to produce the final scores, names, and races of the successful candidates, as they were arguably relevant to the allegations of differential treatment.

However, the Board dismissed the request for scoring sheets and notes, finding them not arguably relevant since the complainant did not challenge the competition scores themselves.

The complainant challenged the employer's refusal to grant his request to exit the Ontario Public Service with enhanced severance benefits under the Voluntary Exit Program (VEP).

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction, arguing the VEP was not an existing term or condition of employment.

The Public Service Grievance Board agreed, finding that the VEP announcement was a pre-contractual representation and did not become a binding term of employment until an application was approved.

The Board concluded it lacked jurisdiction to review the fairness of the decision-making process or to create new terms of employment, and dismissed the complaint.

The complainant requested reconsideration of a previous Board decision dismissing her complaint of reprisal for disclosing wrongdoing.

The complainant argued that her application to the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario constituted a disclosure of wrongdoing.

The Board dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding that the HRTO application could have been raised at the original hearing.

The Board also dismissed the complainant's second complaint regarding her termination, finding that she failed to establish a prima facie case of reprisal and that the complaint was filed outside the mandatory timelines in the Regulation.

The complainant filed a complaint alleging workplace bullying, harassment, and failure to accommodate.

The employer raised preliminary objections arguing that the complaint was filed outside the mandatory time limits set out in O. Reg. 378/07 under the Public Service of Ontario Act.

The Board found that the complainant failed to file her notice to the deputy minister within 14 days of becoming aware of the alleged breach, and failed to file her complaint with the Board within 14 days after the expiry of the dispute resolution period.

As the timelines are mandatory and the Board has no jurisdiction to relieve against them, the complaint was dismissed.

The complainant, an Operational Manager at a correctional centre, required accommodation for family responsibilities, specifically needing to leave work by 17:00.

The employer accommodated this by modifying her regular 06:00-18:00 shifts to 05:00-17:00.

However, for overtime shifts, the employer allowed her to leave at 17:00 but refused to let her start at 05:00, resulting in 11 hours of overtime pay instead of 12.

The complainant argued this was a failure to accommodate.

The Public Service Grievance Board dismissed the complaint, finding the employer's accommodation reasonable.

The duty to accommodate does not require an employer to create work or pay for work it does not need, such as an extra manager between 05:00 and 06:00.

The employer raised a preliminary objection arguing that the complainants' notices of proposal to file a complaint were untimely under Regulation 378/07.

The dispute centered on when the complainants became aware of the working condition giving rise to the complaint regarding the removal of a salary allowance under a new compensation plan.

The Board found that the working condition crystallized gradually and the complainants did not have the complete picture until they saw the changes reflected in their pay stubs.

Therefore, the notices were filed within the 14-day time limit and the preliminary objection was dismissed.

The complainant, who alleged that a management-initiated workplace discrimination and harassment complaint against her was a reprisal, sought production of various documents from the employer.

The employer objected to several requests on the basis of relevance and overbreadth.

The Public Service Grievance Board granted production of documents related to the complainant's expressions of concern about an employee engagement process, organizational structure documents, and communications regarding the initiation of the harassment complaint.

The Board denied requests for a cultural audit report, an intelligence review, and broad requests for all communications and employee addresses, finding them overbroad or insufficiently connected to the issues in dispute.

The complainant filed four separate complaints alleging discrimination on the basis of family status, disability, and gender.

The parties agreed that the second, third, and fourth complaints should be consolidated as they share common questions of law and fact and arise from the same series of occurrences.

The parties also agreed that the first complaint should be heard separately as it raises discrete issues and is already scheduled for a hearing.

The Board ordered the consolidation of the three later complaints and directed that the first complaint proceed as scheduled.

The complainant filed a grievance contesting the employer's decision to deny him a leave of absence to attend a job interview.

The employer raised preliminary objections, arguing the complaint breached the mandatory process and timelines under Regulation 378/07 of the Public Service of Ontario Act, 2006.

The Public Service Grievance Board found that the complaint was filed prematurely, before the expiry of the mandatory 30-day dispute resolution period set out in section 9(5) of the Regulation.

As the Board lacks jurisdiction to amend mandatory time limits, the complaint was dismissed.