Employment and Labour Law - OPSGB

The complainant alleged that the employer violated the Human Rights Code by denying her a merit increase.

Following the closure of a related lead case, the employer provided certain production to the complainant.

The Public Service Grievance Board issued an interim decision directing the self-represented complainant to provide specific particulars of her discrimination claim, including the prohibited grounds relied upon and the factual assertions supporting the allegation, before determining next steps.

The complainant alleged that the employer violated the Human Rights Code by denying her a merit increase.

The Public Service Grievance Board issued an interim decision directing the self-represented complainant to provide specific particulars of the alleged discrimination, including the prohibited grounds relied upon and the factual basis for the claim, before determining next steps.

The complainant failed to provide a necessary undertaking regarding material offered to be produced by the employer, despite previous Board directions.

The Board directed the complainant to advise by October 18, 2021, whether he intends to pursue the complaint.

If the complainant fails to respond, the complaint will be considered abandoned and dismissed.

The complainant, a Unit Sergeant, was suspended for seven days and filed a notice of proposal to complain two days after the 14-day limitation period prescribed by O. Reg. 378/07.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the Board lacked jurisdiction due to the late filing.

The Board dismissed the preliminary objection, finding that the mandatory time limits were suspended by O. Reg. 73/20 under the Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Board exercised its discretion to extend the time limit, noting the lack of prejudice to the employer and the objective of expeditious resolution.

The complainant, a Health Care Manager at a correctional facility, filed a grievance claiming entitlement to temporary pandemic pay.

The Province had announced pandemic pay for eligible frontline workers, but explicitly excluded management personnel under O. Reg. 241/20.

The employer had also provided a separate pandemic pay measure for Sergeants and Staff Sergeants, which did not extend to Health Care Managers.

The Public Service Grievance Board dismissed the complaint, finding it had no jurisdiction to create a new term or condition of employment, as the complainant was a manager and thus excluded from the pandemic pay regulation and the specific policy for Sergeants.

The complainant, a Sergeant at a detention centre, filed a complaint alleging the employer violated staffing policies by cancelling her scheduled statutory holiday shift and failing to recall her for an overtime shift.

The employer raised a preliminary objection to the Board's jurisdiction, arguing the complainant failed to establish a prima facie case.

The Board upheld the preliminary objection, finding that as a managerial employee, the complainant's terms of employment were governed by the Management Compensation Directive, which did not entitle her to work statutory holidays or guarantee overtime assignments.

The complaint was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The self-represented complainant brought a motion requesting that the Vice-Chair recuse himself from the arbitration phase of a med-arb proceeding, alleging a reasonable apprehension of bias based on the Vice-Chair's conduct during the mediation phase and a subsequent case management call.

The complainant also requested permission to record the proceedings and an order that his future legal costs be paid by the employer.

The Public Service Grievance Board dismissed the recusal motion, finding that a reasonable person would understand that a mediator's assessment of case strengths and procedural rulings do not indicate prejudgment.

The Board also denied the request to record the proceedings and deferred the issue of costs to the final decision on the merits.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the complainant's grievance, arguing it was untimely and failed to disclose a prima facie case of a breach of employment conditions or discrimination.

The complainant, a Sergeant, alleged he was denied a permanent Staff Sergeant position despite receiving the highest score in a 2017 competition, and that he was subjected to workplace harassment and a discriminatory return to his home position.

The Board found the complaint was timely, as the time limit only began when the complainant learned he had the highest score in the competition.

The Board also found the allegations established a prima facie case of discrimination and a breach of working conditions.

The employer's motion to dismiss was dismissed.

The complainant, a sergeant at the Ottawa Carleton Detention Centre, filed a grievance alleging systemic discrimination because sergeants did not receive meal allowances for extended shifts or shift premiums for overtime, unlike correctional officers.

The employer raised preliminary objections regarding timeliness, failure to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, and failure to make out a case under Rule 11.

The Public Service Grievance Board upheld the preliminary objections, finding the complaint was filed outside the mandatory 14-day time limit, employee classification is not a protected ground under the Human Rights Code, and the complaint could not succeed even if all alleged facts were true.

The complaint was dismissed.

The complainant, a retired manager, filed a complaint alleging his performance rating was arbitrarily and discriminatorily lowered, denying him a pay increase.

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

The Board dismissed the complaint without a hearing under Rule 11, finding it lacked jurisdiction on three grounds: the Regulation expressly excludes complaints about performance evaluations and resulting compensation; the complainant was retired and no longer a public servant when he filed the complaint; and the complaint was filed well beyond the mandatory 14-day time limit.

The complainant, a manager in Corrections, filed a complaint alleging her 2019-2020 performance rating was maliciously changed by the Employer, resulting in lost wages.

The Public Service Grievance Board dismissed the complaint without a hearing under Rule 11.

The Board held it lacked jurisdiction because O. Reg. 378/07 expressly precludes complaints about the evaluation of a public servant's performance or the resulting compensation.

The complainant, a manager in Corrections, filed a complaint seeking a higher performance rating and associated pay increase.

The Employer requested the complaint be dismissed without a hearing under Rule 11, arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction.

The Board found that paragraphs 4 and 5 of section 4(2) of Ontario Regulation 378/07 expressly exclude matters relating to performance evaluations and resulting compensation from its purview.

The complaint was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The complainant, a manager in Corrections, filed a complaint alleging that his 2019-2020 performance rating was changed with malice by the Employer, and sought compensation for lost wages.

The Employer argued that the Public Service Grievance Board lacked jurisdiction to hear the complaint.

The Board dismissed the complaint without a hearing, finding that sub-paragraphs 4 and 5 of section 4(2) of Ontario Regulation 378/07 expressly exclude matters relating to the evaluation of a public servant's performance and associated compensation from the Board's purview.

The complainant filed a grievance regarding his 2018-2019 performance rating, alleging it was a reprisal for raising concerns about workplace bullying and harassment.

The employer raised preliminary objections regarding jurisdiction and timeliness.

The Public Service Grievance Board dismissed the complaint without a hearing on the merits.

The Board found that performance evaluations are explicitly excluded from its jurisdiction by regulation.

Furthermore, the complainant failed to meet the mandatory time limits for filing his notice of proposal and his complaint.

Finally, the Board held that the complainant did not make out a prima facie case of reprisal, as his complaints to management did not constitute a disclosure of wrongdoing under Part VI of the Public Service of Ontario Act.

The complainant, an Operational Manager, filed a grievance alleging that the employer breached his terms and conditions of employment by failing to offer him a secondary overtime shift after an initial overtime shift went unfilled.

The employer argued that it was within its rights to leave the shift unfilled when no one responded to the initial call.

The Public Service Grievance Board dismissed the complaint, finding no evidence that the employer was required to fill the shift with overtime or that anyone else worked the shift.

The Board also dismissed the complainant's allegations regarding non-compliance with a 2009 decision, finding them untimely and beyond the scope of the current complaint.

Ten managers filed complaints challenging the employer's decision to downgrade their performance ratings, which resulted in the denial of merit pay.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the Public Service Grievance Board lacked jurisdiction to hear the complaints under section 4(2) of Ontario Regulation 378/07, which excludes complaints about performance evaluations and resulting compensation.

The Board upheld the preliminary objection, finding that the complaints fundamentally concerned pay for performance and were excluded from its jurisdiction, even where the employer's actions were alleged to be arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith.

The complaints were dismissed, except for the portions alleging violations of the Human Rights Code, which the Board retained jurisdiction to consider.

The complainant filed a complaint regarding the assignment of his pay for performance rating.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the Public Service Grievance Board lacked jurisdiction to hear the complaint under Ontario Regulation 378/07, which excludes matters relating to performance evaluation and resulting compensation.

After providing the complainant an opportunity to make written submissions, which were not received, the Board dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction.

The complainant, an Operational Manager, alleged she was improperly paid compared to male co-workers and sought a retroactive pay increase.

The employer raised preliminary objections that the complaint did not disclose a violation of a term of employment and was filed outside the statutory timelines.

The Public Service Grievance Board found that the complainant was seeking to create a new term of employment rather than enforce an existing one, and that the complaint was filed 18 months after her promotion, well beyond the 14-day statutory limit.

The complaint was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The employer raised a preliminary objection to the complainant's complaint regarding her dismissal for cause, arguing it was filed prematurely under Regulation 378/07 of the Public Service of Ontario Act.

The employer contended the 30-day dispute resolution period had not expired when the complaint was filed.

The Board applied the modern principle of statutory interpretation and found that the dispute resolution period ended on the date the complainant reasonably understood based on the employer's communications.

The Board concluded the complaint was filed in a timely manner and dismissed the employer's preliminary objection.

The complainant filed a complaint contesting an 8-hour suspension.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the complaint was filed outside the mandatory 14-day time limit under Regulation 378/07.

The central issue was whether the dispute resolution period expired when the employer emailed its decision ('given') or when the complainant returned to work and read it ('received').

Applying the modern principle of statutory interpretation, the Board held that notice was 'given' when it was sent to and received in the complainant's inbox, making the complaint two days late.

The complaint was dismissed as untimely.