OPSGB 2022

The complainant, a Sergeant at the Toronto South Detention Centre, brought a preliminary motion to void a 20-day suspension and her subsequent termination due to the employer's delay in imposing discipline.

The employer had investigated numerous allegations of lateness, early departures, and falsification of attendance records over several months before notifying the complainant.

The Public Service Grievance Board found that the employer's delay in addressing the culpable attendance allegations was unreasonable and prejudiced the complainant's ability to defend herself.

The board set aside the culpable attendance allegations for both the suspension and termination, but reserved its decision on the falsification of records and other allegations until the hearing on the merits.

The complainant filed a grievance alleging breach of promise regarding a temporary assignment, failure to accommodate based on disability and family status, and peer harassment.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the notice of proposal to file a complaint was not given within the mandatory 14-day time limit under Regulation 378/07 of the Public Service of Ontario Act.

The Board upheld the preliminary objection regarding the termination of the temporary assignment and the peer harassment, finding those complaints were untimely.

However, the Board dismissed the preliminary objection regarding the ongoing failure to accommodate after the temporary assignment ended, finding that issue was still live and timely when the notice was filed.

The Employer requested an adjournment of a scheduled hearing date six days prior to the hearing, citing unavailability without providing an explanation.

The Complainant opposed the request.

The Public Service Grievance Board denied the adjournment, noting that the date had been agreed upon at a case conference and the Employer failed to provide any explanation for the late request or the change in availability.

The complainant, a sergeant at a detention centre, filed a complaint alleging discrimination based on family status, race, and other grounds after her requests for childcare accommodation and remote work were denied.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the complaint was filed out of time under the Public Service of Ontario Act and its Regulations.

The complainant argued that the statutory time limits should not apply because her claim involved Charter rights, relying on the Prete decision.

The Public Service Grievance Board sustained the employer's preliminary objection, finding that the complaint was filed months after the mandatory 14-day time limit and that the Board lacked jurisdiction to waive the time limits, even for Charter claims.

The complainant, a correctional sergeant, grieved a 2-day suspension imposed for two separate incidents involving the improper release and admission of inmates.

The discipline was imposed 26 months and 19 months after the respective incidents.

The Public Service Grievance Board found that the employer's delay in investigating and imposing discipline was excessive, unexplained, and highly prejudicial to the complainant.

Consequently, the discipline was declared void and ordered removed from the complainant's file, with full reimbursement for the suspension.

The complainant's request for costs was denied as the employer's conduct was not malicious or in bad faith.

The parties resolved a complaint by entering into a Memorandum of Settlement, but the Employer failed to fully comply with its terms due to payment errors.

Following a case conference, the Public Service Grievance Board ordered the Employer to review and verify the deductions and payments required by the settlement, specifically regarding legal fees, pension deductions, and benefit deductions.

The Complainant was directed to cooperate with reasonable requests to facilitate the correction of any payment errors.

The applicant filed an application under the Public Service of Ontario Act, 2006, requesting the Public Service Grievance Board to permanently remove a Grievance Settlement Board decision from the database.

The Board dismissed the application, finding it had no jurisdiction to deal with matters that were or should be before the Grievance Settlement Board.

The complainant failed to respond to a previous Board decision confirming his intention to proceed with the remaining aspect of his complaint and providing his availability for a hearing.

Consequently, the Board considered the complaint abandoned and dismissed it.

The complainant, a correctional sergeant, was dismissed for alleged excessive use of force and orchestrating a sick leave call.

He filed a complaint with the Public Service Grievance Board.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the complainant failed to provide notice of his proposal to file a complaint to the Deputy Minister within the mandatory 14-day period under O. Reg. 378/07.

The Board found that the notice was provided 15 days after the complainant received notice of his dismissal.

As the timelines in the regulation are mandatory and the Board has no discretion to extend them, the Board concluded it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the complaint.

The complainant, a Sergeant at a correctional complex, filed a complaint alleging he was unfairly denied a performance-based merit increase when his performance rating was downgraded by regional management.

The employer challenged the jurisdiction of the Public Service Grievance Board to hear the complaint.

The Board held that under section 4(2) of O. Reg. 378/07, it has no jurisdiction to entertain complaints regarding the evaluation of a public servant's performance or the resulting compensation.

The complaint was dismissed.

The complainant filed a grievance alleging that her supervisor downgraded her annual performance evaluation in retaliation for a previous workplace harassment complaint.

The employer raised a preliminary objection to the Board's jurisdiction.

The Board held that under section 4(2) of O. Reg. 378/07, it has no jurisdiction to entertain complaints regarding the evaluation of a public servant's performance, even where bad faith or retaliation is alleged.

The complaint was dismissed.

A deputy superintendent challenged his dismissal arising from the preferential treatment of an incarcerated correctional officer and his subsequent statements during the employer's investigation.

The Board found that the complainant, as a senior manager, set the stage for preferential treatment, failed over several days to correct obvious policy breaches, and materially misled investigators by omissions and false statements.

Applying the contextual just-cause approach, the Board held that the misconduct and resulting loss of trust were irreconcilable with continued employment.

Lengthy service and a prior clean record were insufficient mitigating factors.

The complainant, a Deputy Superintendent at a correctional facility, grieved a 2-day suspension for insubordination and unauthorized use of a Ministry purchasing card.

The complainant had used his purchasing card to hire a private handwriting expert to investigate a suspected compromised correctional officer, despite being told by regional management that such an expert was unnecessary.

The Public Service Grievance Board found that the complainant knew he required authorization, proceeded without it, and defied clear direction from his superiors.

The Board dismissed the grievance, holding that the 2-day suspension was an appropriate disciplinary response for a senior manager who substituted his own judgment for that of his superiors.

The complainant alleged that the employer violated the Human Rights Code in applying its performance pay policy.

After failing to provide ordered particulars and failing to respond to the Registrar's scheduling emails, the Board directed the complainant to advise whether he intended to pursue the complaint and to provide his availability for a hearing.

The Board warned that failure to respond by the deadline would result in the complaint being deemed abandoned and dismissed.

The Complainant, a Sergeant at a correctional facility, was terminated following the murder of an inmate by his cellmate.

The Employer alleged the Complainant failed to respond to a report of a possible brew and intoxicated inmate, failed to conduct a security tour, failed to properly report the incident, and refused to cooperate in a section 22 investigation.

The Board found that the Complainant's response to the report of a brew was consistent with the accepted practices at the institution at the time, and that security tours were not mandatory.

However, the Board found cause for discipline regarding his failure to file a timely occurrence report, submitting a report to himself, and refusing to participate in the section 22 investigation (which he did on the advice of criminal counsel).

The Board concluded that termination was excessive, substituting a 1-year suspension and ordering reinstatement with compensation from the date of his criminal acquittal.