Administrative Law - OPSGB

The grievor, a senior executive, was released from employment and declared surplus pursuant to s. 22(4) of the Public Service Act.

Eleven months after the expiry of the 21-day time limit, the grievor filed a grievance alleging wrongful dismissal.

The employer raised preliminary objections regarding jurisdiction and timeliness.

The Public Service Grievance Board assumed jurisdiction by treating the matter as an alleged wrongful dismissal grievance but declined to extend the time limits for filing.

Finding no satisfactory explanation for the lengthy delay, the Board dismissed the grievance as untimely.

Following an arbitration award that reinstated the grievor with full compensation, the parties disagreed on whether compensation included legal costs.

The grievor sought legal costs, citing a previous exceptional case.

The Public Service Grievance Board denied the request, reaffirming its long-standing policy not to award legal costs in grievance arbitrations, finding no unique circumstances to justify an exception.

The Grievor was released from his employment on the last day of his one-year probationary period.

He filed grievances alleging wrongful dismissal and improper working conditions.

The Employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the grievances for lack of jurisdiction, arguing that under section 22(5) of the Public Service Act, a probationary employee released within the first year has no right to a hearing on the merits.

The Grievor argued he had completed his probationary period by working on the final day.

The Public Service Grievance Board held that releasing the employee on the 365th day satisfied the statutory requirement for termination within the first year.

The Board concluded it lacked jurisdiction to hear the dismissal grievance or the working conditions grievance, and dismissed both.

The grievor, a former management employee of the Workers' Compensation Board, filed a grievance alleging wrongful dismissal.

The employer raised a preliminary objection, arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction because the grievor was not a public servant under the Public Service Act.

The Public Service Grievance Board agreed, finding that the grievor was hired by the Chair of the Workers' Compensation Board, a Schedule III Crown Agency, and was not employed under the jurisdiction of a Deputy Minister as required by section 36(1) of Regulation 977.

The grievance was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The grievor, a unit manager at a detention centre, filed a grievance alleging that he was targeted by the union and subjected to a campaign of harassment, including a withdrawn sexual harassment complaint and an abandoned disciplinary investigation.

He sought the removal of negative reports from his file, priority for future promotions, and financial compensation for lost vacation credits and legal costs.

The Public Service Grievance Board allowed the grievance in part, ordering the employer to purge the grievor's file of all references to the sexual harassment complaint and the abandoned disciplinary hearing.

The Board dismissed the claims for promotional priority and financial compensation, finding no wrongdoing by the employer that would justify such relief.

Following a successful grievance arbitration, the grievor submitted a bill of costs for legal expenses.

The employer refused to pay, arguing the Public Service Grievance Board lacked jurisdiction to award costs.

The Board held that its remedial authority implicitly includes the power to award reasonable legal costs to restore a successful grievor to their rightful financial position.

After reviewing the grievor's counsel's time records, the Board reduced the claimed amount of $46,797.18 and fixed reasonable legal costs at $14,047.18.

The grievor, a bargaining unit employee, applied for a non-bargaining unit position and was unsuccessful.

He filed a grievance with the Public Service Grievance Board.

The employer objected to the Board's jurisdiction, arguing that the grievor, as a bargaining unit employee, falls under the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act and must grieve through the Grievance Settlement Board.

The Board agreed, finding that the definition of 'persons employed in the public service' under the Public Service Act regulations excludes those defined as 'employees' under the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act.

The grievance was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The grievor, a Senior Policy Advisor, filed a grievance alleging that a job competition was awarded without due consideration of merit and was influenced by discrimination.

The employer raised a preliminary objection, arguing that the grievance should be dismissed because the Board lacked jurisdiction to grant the requested remedies, asserting that the only available remedy would be a re-run of the competition.

The Board dismissed the preliminary objection, finding that it has jurisdiction to hear complaints related to position competitions under the Public Service Act, although it noted that the usual remedy for a flawed competition is indeed a remission back to the employer to re-run the competition.

The grievor, a probationary employee, was released from her employment pursuant to s. 22(5) of the Public Service Act.

She filed a grievance alleging wrongful dismissal.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the Public Service Grievance Board lacked jurisdiction to hear the grievance because the grievor was released during her first year of employment.

The Board held that it lacked jurisdiction to deal with the grievance of a probationary employee released under s. 22(5) of the Act, as such employees are excluded by s. 42(1) of Regulation 881.

The grievance was dismissed.

The grievor, a bargaining unit employee, was appointed to an acting position outside the bargaining unit.

He filed a grievance seeking a declaration that his acting appointment had become a permanent appointment.

The Employer raised preliminary objections to the Board's jurisdiction.

The Public Service Grievance Board held that it lacked jurisdiction to grant the remedy sought, as the Civil Service Commission has exclusive authority to make permanent appointments.

Furthermore, the Board held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the grievance because the grievor retained his bargaining unit classification, and therefore his working conditions were governed by the collective agreement rather than the regulations under the Public Service Act.

The grievors, first-level supervisory staff at the Whitby Jail, filed a grievance alleging that the employer acted arbitrarily, discriminatorily, and in bad faith by failing to address the erosion and elimination of salary differentials between managers and their bargaining unit subordinates.

The employer objected that the grievance was inarbitrable.

The Public Service Grievance Board dismissed the grievance, finding that it lacked jurisdiction to rectify salary relationships or revise compensation levels for management personnel, and that the grievors failed to establish bad faith or discriminatory conduct by the employer.

The grievor, a shift supervisor, filed a grievance alleging that a subordinate bargaining unit employee was paid at a higher hourly rate due to salary compression.

The employer objected to the Board's jurisdiction, arguing that setting compensation levels for management personnel is the exclusive function of the Civil Service Commission.

The Public Service Grievance Board found that while it has jurisdiction to hear complaints regarding working conditions and terms of employment, it lacks the authority to rectify salary relationships or review the adequacy of the management compensation plan.

The grievance was dismissed as inarbitrable.

The grievor, a management-level employee, filed a grievance after receiving a 3% merit increase without the formal notification or consultation required by the employer's Manual of Administration.

The employer raised a preliminary objection, arguing that the Public Service Grievance Board lacked jurisdiction because the Manual of Administration does not constitute 'working conditions or terms of employment' under Regulation 881 of the Public Service Act.

The Board dismissed the preliminary objection, holding that 'working conditions or terms of employment' must be interpreted broadly and encompasses the integrated process of performance appraisal, merit pay determination, and employee consultation.

The Board assumed jurisdiction to hear the grievance on its merits.

The grievor, a public servant, alleged that he was wrongly denied a position in the Executive Compensation Plan after his former position was abolished and he was assigned to a lower-classified position with salary protection.

The employer raised preliminary objections regarding timeliness, procedure, and the Board's jurisdiction to order an appointment to the executive level.

The Board dismissed the preliminary objections, finding the grievance timely and within its jurisdiction.

On the merits, the Board found that the grievor's former position was abolished under Section 17 of the Regulations, which only provides salary protection, rather than reclassified under Section 16, which would entitle him to the first available position at his former level.

The grievance was dismissed.

The grievor, a dentist at a regional centre, was suspended with pay for the remainder of the day following an altercation with his supervisor.

He was subsequently suspended without pay for successive twenty-day periods pending an investigation into his professional fitness by the Royal College of Dental Surgeons.

The grievor filed grievances alleging improper suspension and seeking damages.

The Public Service Grievance Board found it had jurisdiction to hear the suspension grievances, determining they were disciplinary in nature.

The Board held that the initial suspension for the remainder of the day was justified due to insubordination, but the subsequent suspensions without pay were improper because the employer failed to conduct its own hearing as required by the regulations and instead relied on an external investigation.

The claims for damages and costs were dismissed as they were raised too late in the proceedings.

The grievors, Schedule 6 employees in the Audit Branch, grieved a new travel policy that altered how travel time was calculated and absorbed by the employer.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the Public Service Grievance Board lacked jurisdiction because the Public Service Act and Regulation 881 do not provide for travel time compensation for Schedule 6 employees, and thus there was no breach of the regulation.

The Board agreed, finding that it had no jurisdiction to amend the travel policy guidelines or impose its own views on fairness, as the regulation did not circumscribe management's rights regarding travel time for these employees.

The grievances were dismissed.

The grievor, a manager at the Guelph Correctional Centre, grieved that his salary was lower than that of a subordinate bargaining unit employee due to wage restraints.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the Public Service Grievance Board lacked jurisdiction to alter salaries established by the Civil Service Commission or negotiated in a collective agreement.

The Board agreed, finding it had no authority to increase or decrease wages established for the Management Compensation Plan or the bargaining unit.

The grievance was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The grievor, a bargaining unit employee, filed a grievance alleging that a job competition for a non-bargaining unit management position was not held in good faith and that his war service preference rights under Regulation 881 were violated.

The Grievance Settlement Board previously found it lacked jurisdiction because the position was outside the bargaining unit.

The grievance was then referred to the Public Service Grievance Board.

The employer raised a preliminary objection to jurisdiction.

The Board held that bargaining unit employees must rely on the collective agreement and the Grievance Settlement Board, while the Public Service Grievance Board only has jurisdiction over non-bargaining unit employees claiming a violation of the Public Service Act or Regulation 881.

The grievance was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The grievor alleged she was improperly demoted when she was removed from a position in the Management Compensation Plan and placed into a bargaining unit position.

The employer argued the Public Service Grievance Board lacked jurisdiction because the grievor was now in the bargaining unit, and that the Ontario Public Service Labour Relations Tribunal should determine her status.

The Board held that it, or a Classification Rating Committee, has jurisdiction to hear the grievance because the grievor would not be permitted to pursue her grievance before the Grievance Settlement Board or the Tribunal, and the event giving rise to the grievance occurred while she was in the Management Compensation Plan.

The grievor, a bargaining unit employee, filed a grievance seeking reclassification to a position within the Management Compensation Plan.

The employer objected to the jurisdiction of the Grievance Settlement Board, arguing it could not grant the requested remedy, and subsequently objected to the jurisdiction of the Public Service Grievance Board, arguing the matter was a question of status for the Public Service Labour Relations Tribunal.

The Public Service Grievance Board held that neither the Public Service Act nor its regulations prevented jurisdiction, and that denying a hearing would be contrary to progressive labour relations and legislative intent.

The Board concluded that the Classification Rating Committee was the appropriate forum to hear the classification grievance and directed the grievor to apply for a hearing before it.