OPSGB 2021

The complainant filed a grievance regarding his 2018-2019 performance rating, alleging it was a reprisal for raising concerns about workplace bullying and harassment.

The employer raised preliminary objections regarding jurisdiction and timeliness.

The Public Service Grievance Board dismissed the complaint without a hearing on the merits.

The Board found that performance evaluations are explicitly excluded from its jurisdiction by regulation.

Furthermore, the complainant failed to meet the mandatory time limits for filing his notice of proposal and his complaint.

Finally, the Board held that the complainant did not make out a prima facie case of reprisal, as his complaints to management did not constitute a disclosure of wrongdoing under Part VI of the Public Service of Ontario Act.

The complainant, a manager in Corrections, filed a complaint alleging that his 2019-2020 performance rating was changed with malice by the Employer, and sought compensation for lost wages.

The Employer argued that the Public Service Grievance Board lacked jurisdiction to hear the complaint.

The Board dismissed the complaint without a hearing, finding that sub-paragraphs 4 and 5 of section 4(2) of Ontario Regulation 378/07 expressly exclude matters relating to the evaluation of a public servant's performance and associated compensation from the Board's purview.

The complainant, a manager in Corrections, filed a complaint alleging her 2019-2020 performance rating was maliciously changed by the Employer, resulting in lost wages.

The Public Service Grievance Board dismissed the complaint without a hearing under Rule 11.

The Board held it lacked jurisdiction because O. Reg. 378/07 expressly precludes complaints about the evaluation of a public servant's performance or the resulting compensation.

The complainant, a manager in Corrections, filed a complaint seeking a higher performance rating and associated pay increase.

The Employer requested the complaint be dismissed without a hearing under Rule 11, arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction.

The Board found that paragraphs 4 and 5 of section 4(2) of Ontario Regulation 378/07 expressly exclude matters relating to performance evaluations and resulting compensation from its purview.

The complaint was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The complainant, an Operational Manager, filed a grievance alleging that the employer breached his terms and conditions of employment by failing to offer him a secondary overtime shift after an initial overtime shift went unfilled.

The employer argued that it was within its rights to leave the shift unfilled when no one responded to the initial call.

The Public Service Grievance Board dismissed the complaint, finding no evidence that the employer was required to fill the shift with overtime or that anyone else worked the shift.

The Board also dismissed the complainant's allegations regarding non-compliance with a 2009 decision, finding them untimely and beyond the scope of the current complaint.