PSGB# P-2023-03205; P-2023-03206

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE PUBLIC SERVICE OF ONTARIO ACT

Before

THE PUBLIC SERVICE GRIEVANCE BOARD

BETWEEN

Barnes

Complainant

• and -

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

Employer

BEFORE

Barry Fisher

Vice Chair

FOR THE COMPLAINANT

Patrick Barnes

FOR THE EMPLOYER

Alana Bujeya Treasury Board Secretariat Legal Services Branch Counsel

HEARING

April 4, 2025

Decision

1The basis of the complaint is that the increase in the Complainant’s wage as a Staff Sergeant was only implemented on January 8, 2024 even though he had been doing the same job since at least February 2023.

Ruling on the Preliminary Objection re Timeliness:

2The Employer’s preliminary objection is based on timeliness, in that Mr. Barnes did not file his complaint within the 14-day time limit in the Regulation. He was told on December 21, 2023 that an increase would be effective as of January 8, 2024. He filed his complaint on January 21, 2024 which was 14 days from the date of the increase but more than 14 days from when he was first advised of the forthcoming increase.

3The issue then becomes whether the start date for the 14 days begins when he was first told of the increase (December 21, 2023) or when it was actually implemented (January 8, 2024).

4It is important to note that the December 21, 2023 letter was sent to all Staff Sergeants. It read as follows:

Effective January 8, 2024 existing confirmed Staff Sergeants will be promoted into Staff Sergeant positions and receive the applicable salary increases as per Pay on Assignment Operations Policy.

5It is also important to note that the letter did not indicate how much of an increase Mr. Barnes would receive. This was only told to Mr. Barnes on January 10, 2024, when he was given a personal letter which both confirmed his promotion and for the first time told him that his salary increase would be 3%.

6Mr. Barnes was entitled to wait until he knew exactly what his individual increase would be before deciding whether or not to file his grievance. I find that the 14-day timeframe starts on January 10, 2024 and therefore his complaint is timely. The preliminary objection is dismissed.

Ruling on the Merits:

7Mr. Barnes claims that he is entitled to the 3% increase prior to January 8, 2024 as he had been doing the same job since February 2023.

8On January 30, 2023 Mr. Barnes was told that he had three options regarding his position, including electing to be considered for a promotional opportunity as a Staff Sergeant. The letter went on to say the following:

Effective dates of new assignments will be determined by the Ministry at a later date.

9On February 28, 2023, Mr. Barnes chose the promotional opportunity option.

10On March 6, 2023 Mr. Barnes received a letter which stated:

This will confirm that you have selected Option 2 (elect to be considered for a promotional opportunity as a Staff Sergeant at Ottawa Carleton Detention Centre.

Based on the election results and the institution’s requirements, this letter is to advise that you will be directly assigned to the position of Staff Sergeant at Ottawa Carleton Detention Centre. The effective date of the change and the impact to your salary will be communicated to you at a future date. (emphasis added)

11It is clear from this correspondence that the Ministry never promised that the promotion would take place in any specific time frame.

12It is well known that this reassignment process was delayed many months because of a ruling by the OLRB that those persons who chose the option to stay in the Sergeant position in the OPSEU bargaining unit could not simply be placed into the position but rather the position had to be posted and that a competition must be held.

13This meant that the entire implementation of these changes had to wait until the competitive process under the OPSEU agreement was completed. That process took many months to complete. Only then could employees like Mr. Barnes be placed in the position that they were told that they would ultimately be assigned to.

14As such it was not a “term of his employment” that he would be promoted and therefore receive the wage increase by a certain date.

15Furthermore, the delay was not based on any fault or bad faith by the Employer.

16The PGSB only has jurisdiction if the public servant can show that they are “aggrieved about a working condition or about a term of his or her employment” (See Regulation 378/07 Section 4(1) of the Public Service of Ontario Act, 2006).

17As the claim by Mr. Barnes does not involve any breach of a “term of employment” the PGSB has no jurisdiction.

18Mr. Barnes also made allegations of bullying, however there was no evidence led on this point.

19The Complaint is therefore dismissed.