PSGB# P-2024-00193

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE PUBLIC SERVICE OF ONTARIO ACT

Before

THE PUBLIC SERVICE GRIEVANCE BOARD

BETWEEN

Barrett

Complainant

• and -

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

Employer

BEFORE

Barry Fisher

Vice Chair

FOR THE COMPLAINANT

William Barrett

FOR THE EMPLOYER

Maria-Kristina Ascenzi Treasury Board Secretariat Legal Services Branch Counsel

HEARING

June 13, 2025

Decision

1Mr. Barrett seeks reconsideration of my earlier decision dated March 4, 2025, whereby I upheld the Preliminary Objection of the Ministry on the basis that he was employed at the time of his dismissal for a fixed term on an irregular or on-call basis pursuant to Section 5.2(5) of Regulation 378/07 under the Public Service Act.

2The Board has issued Practice Note #7 which explains how we treat Reconsideration requests:

Reconsideration Requests

1. The Board has the discretion to reconsider its decisions. This authority is set out in the Board's Rules, which include the following provision:

2. The Board may, if it considers it advisable to do so, reconsider any decision, order, direction, declaration or ruling made by it and vary or revoke any such decision, order, direction, declaration or ruling.

3. The Board has stated in past decisions that, in exercising this power, it will generally follow a restrictive approach like that followed by other employment and labour law tribunals. A primary reason for this is because of the need for finality and promptness in the resolution of employment disputes. See Baccega v Ontario (Solicitor General), 2020 CanLII 45593 (ON PSGB) and Rabaey v Ontario (Children, Community and Social Services), 2024 CanLII 40069 (ON PSGB).

4. As these decisions confirmed, the Board will generally not reconsider a decision unless:

a. the decision contains an obvious error;

b. the request to reconsider raises important policy issues which have not been adequately addressed;

c. new evidence is sought to be presented which could not previously have been obtained and presented with the exercise of due diligence and which could, if accepted, make a difference to the decision; or

d. representations are sought to be made which the requesting party had no previous opportunity to make.

4. Due to the need for finality in employee relations matters, the Board's reconsideration power is not to be used as either a tool for a party to repair the deficiency of its case nor as an opportunity to reargue it. If the requesting party relies on evidence or arguments that could have been, or were, raised at the original hearing, the Board will normally not reconsider its decision.

5. A request for reconsideration shall be initiated in writing to the Registrar, together with confirmation that a copy of the request has been delivered to the other interested party or parties. The Board shall advise the other party or parties whether any written response is required and, if so, the date by which it must be delivered.

3Applying those principles to this case, I determine the following:

The Regulation provides that three classes of public servants cannot file complaints:

1. A public servant who is employed for a fixed term for fewer than 14 hours per week.

2. A public servant who is employed for a fixed term for fewer than nine full days in four consecutive weeks.

3. A public servant who is employed for a fixed term on an irregular or on-call basis.

4Mr. Barrett presented evidence at the reconsideration hearing that he worked sufficient hours so that neither category 1 or 2 would exclude him from filing a complaint.

5However, Mr. Barrett again admitted that at the time of his termination he was a public servant who was employed for a fixed term on an irregular or on-call basis.

6He therefore cannot file a complaint about his termination but he can bring a civil action for wrongful dismissal in the Courts.