OPSGB 2023

The complainants, managerial employees, sought compensation for mandatory rapid antigen testing (RAT) performed outside working hours, relying on a prior grievance settlement for unionized staff.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the complaints were filed outside the mandatory 14-day time limit under O. Reg. 378/07.

The Board agreed, finding that the time limit began when the RAT initiative was implemented in February 2022, not when the complainants learned of the union settlement in March 2023.

As the Board lacks jurisdiction to extend the mandatory time limit, the complaints were dismissed.

The complainant, a retired public servant, filed a grievance claiming enhanced severance pay following a restructuring announcement.

The employer raised four preliminary objections to the Board's jurisdiction.

The Board dismissed the first three objections, finding that the complainant established a prima facie case, filed his notice of proposal within the 14-day time limit, and was eligible to file despite being retired.

However, the Board sustained the fourth objection, finding that the complaint was filed one day before the expiry of the mandatory 30-day dispute resolution period.

As the time limits are mandatory, the premature filing left the Board without jurisdiction, and the complaint was dismissed.

The Complainants, Sergeants at the Quinte Detention Centre, filed applications challenging their planned relocation to the Central East Correctional Centre after being deemed to have elected reclassification to a Correctional Supervisor position.

The Employer raised a preliminary objection, arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction over classification matters under O. Reg. 378/07.

The Board found it premature to determine its jurisdiction, as a recent Grievance Settlement Board decision had ruled the Employer's placement process violated the OPSEU collective agreement.

The applications were adjourned sine die pending the Employer's response to the GSB decision.

The Complainant, a Sergeant, filed a grievance challenging his treatment during a Ministry restructuring that offered him a choice between a promotion to Staff Sergeant or reclassification to an OPSEU-represented Correctional Supervisor position.

The Employer brought a preliminary objection arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction over classification assignments and that the complaint failed to disclose a prima facie case.

The Board dismissed the application without a hearing, finding that the Complainant had elected the promotion and thus his complaint regarding the pension consequences of the unselected reclassification option was moot.

The application alleged no violation of existing terms and conditions of employment.

The complainant, a Staff Sergeant, alleged that the Employer unfairly denied him developmental and promotional opportunities for discriminatory reasons, and failed to address workplace bullying and harassment.

The Public Service Grievance Board found that the Employer provided a credible, non-discriminatory explanation for not awarding the complainant a permanent position, as he lacked the required experience.

The Board also found that the Employer took reasonable steps to address workplace friction and that the decision to return the complainant to his home position at the end of a temporary assignment was based on operational needs and the natural conclusion of the assignment.

The complaint was dismissed.

The complainant filed a grievance regarding a disciplinary suspension without pay.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the Board lacked jurisdiction because the complainant failed to give notice of his proposal to file a complaint within the mandatory 14-day period under O. Reg. 378/07.

The complainant argued the delay was due to being self-represented, confusion over a statutory holiday, and fear of reprisal.

The Board upheld the employer's objection, finding that the 14-day time limit is mandatory, goes to jurisdiction, and the Board has no discretion to extend it.

The complaint was dismissed.

The complainant filed a complaint alleging unfair allocation of overtime.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the complaint was untimely because the Notice of Proposal was filed one day after the mandatory 14-day time limit under O. Reg. 378/07.

The complainant failed to file a reply to the preliminary objection.

The Public Service Grievance Board held that the 14-day time limit is mandatory and it lacks discretion to extend it.

The complaint was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The Employer brought a motion requesting that the Complainant provide further and better particulars of her allegations of discrimination, harassment, and condonation in her applications challenging a suspension and termination.

The Complainant opposed the motion, requested that portions of the Employer's pleadings be struck, and opposed the Employer's request that the Chair take a view of the workplace.

The Board ordered the Complainant to provide particulars for specific factual allegations but not for conclusory statements.

The Board declined to strike the Employer's pleadings as the disclosure process was ongoing.

The parties were directed to seek agreement on the conditions and timing for taking a view of the workplace.