PSGB# P-2024-00500; P-2024-00592

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE PUBLIC SERVICE OF ONTARIO ACT

Before

THE PUBLIC SERVICE GRIEVANCE BOARD

BETWEEN

Bharaj and Singh

Complainant

• and -

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

Employer

BEFORE

Brian Smeenk

Chair

FOR THE COMPLAINANT

Pardeep Bharaj Gurvinder Monti Singh

FOR THE EMPLOYER

Andrew Lynes Treasury Board Secretariat Legal Services Branch Counsel

DECISION

1File No, P-2024-00500 is a complaint brought by Mr. Pardeep Bharaj against the Employer in connection with the Employer’s decision not to award him the position of Corporal/Correctional Supervisor after a job competition. File No. P-2024-00592 is a complaint brought by Mr. Gurvinder Singh against the Employer, also in connection with the Employer’s decision not to award him the position of Corporal/Correctional Supervisor after a job competition.

2Each complaint was assigned to different Vice Chairs of the Board, in the normal course. As also occurs in the normal course, the Employer’s Responses were filed after the Vice Chair was assigned in the respective cases. No hearings have yet been held in either case. Case management meetings and mediations have, however, been held by the respective Vice Chairs in both matters.

3In its Response to the second complaint, that brought by Mr. Singh, as confirmed by letter dated August 22, 2024 (after both mediations were unsuccessful), the Employer seeks consolidation of these matters in accordance with Rule 25 of the Board’s Rules. That Rule states as follows:

The Board may consolidate or hear cases at the same time or immediately one after the other when it appears to the Board that:

a. the complaints have a question of law or fact in common;

b. the relief claimed in the complaints arises out of the same transaction or occurrence or series of transactions or occurrences, or;

c. for any other reason an order ought to be made under this rule.

4Both Complainants were copied with the Employer’s letter requesting consolidation. Neither has responded.

5This decision addresses the Employer’s request.

6The Employer submits that both Complaints relate to the same questions of law and fact. It asserts that both Complaints arise out of the same job competition (Job ID#208153) for a job in the bargaining unit represented by Ontario Public Service Employees Union (“OPSEU”). The Employer objects to both Complaints in part on the basis that the Board does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate a complaint arising out of OPSEU’s collective agreement. Counsel for the Employer argues that the Board has ordered consolidation in similar circumstances: Bowmaster et al v Ontario (Solicitor General), 2020 CanLII 32996 at paras 6-7.

7On review of the applications and the responses filed in these matters, it appears that the applications do indeed arise from the same job competition. It also appears that there is considerable overlap regarding the background facts involving the reorganization of the Sergeant classification and regarding the factual allegations of the applicants involving the relevant job competition. There is also much overlap in the Employer’s defenses, including at least one of its jurisdictional objections.

8Having regard for the likely significant overlap in evidence and argument and the fact that no hearings have begun in either matter, it seems clear that the efficient use of the Board’s resources and the consistency of its decisions would be promoted if these cases are heard by the same Vice Chair. This is so whether the matters are heard concurrently or one after the other.

9It should be left to the Vice Chair assigned to these cases to determine whether they ought to be consolidated, simply heard together, or heard one after the other.

10It is noted that Mr. Bharaj’s application was the first to be filed and therefore the first to be assigned to a Vice Chair. Mr. Singh’s application is therefore hereby re-assigned to be heard by that Vice Chair, who will determine how both cases can best be managed and heard.