PSGB# P-2019-1714

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE PUBLIC SERVICE OF ONTARIO ACT

Before

THE PUBLIC SERVICE GRIEVANCE BOARD

BETWEEN

Ewing

Complainant

• and -

The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of the Solicitor General)

Employer

BEFORE

Kathleen G. O’Neil

Chair

FOR THE COMPLAINANT

Robert Ewing

SUBMISSIONS

Written submissions completed November 12, 2019

Decision

1This decision records the Board’s decision to dismiss the complaint of Mr. Ewing as it deals with pay for performance, a matter removed from the Board’s jurisdiction by Regulation 378/07.

2After the Board received Mr. Ewing’s complaint, dated October 10, 2019, it wrote a letter to him, dated October 15, noting that the employer had raised a preliminary objection to the effect that the Public Service Grievance Board [PSGB] does not have jurisdiction to hear the complaint as it appears to be a complaint regarding the evaluation of his performance. The letter noted that, as a statutory tribunal, the PSGB can only deal with those complaints falling within its legislative mandate. This mandate is limited by Ontario Regulation 378/07. Section 4 (2) of that Regulation reads in the most relevant part:

(2) The following matters cannot be the subject of a complaint about a working condition or about a term of employment:

4. The evaluation of a public servant’s performance or the method of evaluating his or her performance.

5. The compensation provided or denied to a public servant as a result of the evaluation of his or her performance.

0.Reg. 378/07, s. 4(2)

3The Board further gave notice that it was considering dismissing the complaint at a preliminary stage, but noting that Mr. Ewing was entitled to make written submissions to the Board, before a final decision was made, as to why the Board should not dismiss his complaint on that basis, due on or before November 4, 2019. Mr. Ewing replied on November 12, indicating that he was confused as he thought he had sent the submission immediately after the Solicitor General responded to his complaint.

4The Board replied by email clarifying that, when referring to submissions due November 4, it was referring to submissions requested by its letter of October 15, concerning the possibility of dismissal of his complaint, related to the employer's preliminary objection in respect of the Board's lack of jurisdiction to hear complaints related to evaluation or pay for performance. The Board further noted that if Mr. Ewing had sent submissions since October 15, he could re-send them, as the Board had not received them, or that he could request an extension of time to do so.

5The Board heard nothing further from Mr. Ewing.

6Mr. Ewing’s complaint clearly deals with the assignment of his pay for performance rating, something removed from the Board’s jurisdiction by the regulatory provisions set out above. In the absence of any submissions as to why the Board should not do so, the Board hereby dismisses the complaint.