Human Rights - OPSGB

The complainant, a Staff Sergeant at a correctional facility, grieved a 7-day disciplinary suspension for arriving late, falsifying timesheets, using the gym during overtime shifts, and sending an inappropriate email to a manager.

The complainant alleged the investigation was racially motivated and that he was unfairly targeted.

The Public Service Grievance Board dismissed the discrimination claim, finding no prima facie case.

However, the Board reduced the suspension from 7 days to 3 days because the employer withdrew one allegation and mistakenly relied on a non-existent prior disciplinary record.

The complainant challenged the employer's decision not to select her for a Manager of Court Operations position.

She alleged the competition was flawed because the selection panel failed to independently consider her prior experience and performance in the role, and instead relied on an interview and presentation.

She also alleged the panel improperly considered her age.

The Board found the employer's choice of rating methods was reasonable and complied with its Employment Policy.

However, the Board found that notes from the panel's debrief meeting referencing an 'age factor' and 'stale' concepts established a prima facie case of age discrimination that the employer failed to rebut.

The Board ordered the competition to be re-run.

The Complainant, a Manager of Air Approvals, alleged that the Employer failed to accommodate his disability when it removed him from his home position and placed him in a Health Reassignment Program.

Following a return from extended leave, the Complainant worked two days a week with modified duties.

When updated medical information indicated his restrictions were permanent, the Employer determined he could no longer perform the essential duties of the managerial role.

The Complainant subsequently retired and alleged he did so under duress.

The Public Service Grievance Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the Employer had met its procedural and substantive duty to accommodate, as it was not required to permanently carve out essential duties or create a new position.

The Board also found no evidence that the retirement was made under duress.

The Complainant applied to the Public Service Grievance Board alleging a failure to accommodate by the employer.

During mediation, it became clear that the Complainant's Long Term Income Protection file was relevant.

The Vice Chair ordered the insurance carrier to provide copies of the file to the parties and the Board.

The complainant, a Staff Sergeant, alleged that the Employer unfairly denied him developmental and promotional opportunities for discriminatory reasons, and failed to address workplace bullying and harassment.

The Public Service Grievance Board found that the Employer provided a credible, non-discriminatory explanation for not awarding the complainant a permanent position, as he lacked the required experience.

The Board also found that the Employer took reasonable steps to address workplace friction and that the decision to return the complainant to his home position at the end of a temporary assignment was based on operational needs and the natural conclusion of the assignment.

The complaint was dismissed.

The complainant filed a grievance alleging breach of promise regarding a temporary assignment, failure to accommodate based on disability and family status, and peer harassment.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the notice of proposal to file a complaint was not given within the mandatory 14-day time limit under Regulation 378/07 of the Public Service of Ontario Act.

The Board upheld the preliminary objection regarding the termination of the temporary assignment and the peer harassment, finding those complaints were untimely.

However, the Board dismissed the preliminary objection regarding the ongoing failure to accommodate after the temporary assignment ended, finding that issue was still live and timely when the notice was filed.

The complainant, a sergeant at a detention centre, filed a complaint alleging discrimination based on family status, race, and other grounds after her requests for childcare accommodation and remote work were denied.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the complaint was filed out of time under the Public Service of Ontario Act and its Regulations.

The complainant argued that the statutory time limits should not apply because her claim involved Charter rights, relying on the Prete decision.

The Public Service Grievance Board sustained the employer's preliminary objection, finding that the complaint was filed months after the mandatory 14-day time limit and that the Board lacked jurisdiction to waive the time limits, even for Charter claims.

The complainant alleged that the employer violated the Human Rights Code in applying its performance pay policy.

After failing to provide ordered particulars and failing to respond to the Registrar's scheduling emails, the Board directed the complainant to advise whether he intended to pursue the complaint and to provide his availability for a hearing.

The Board warned that failure to respond by the deadline would result in the complaint being deemed abandoned and dismissed.

The complainant filed three complaints alleging the employer withheld documents related to a long-term disability claim, failed to accommodate her, and engaged in workplace harassment.

Following an unsuccessful mediation, the Public Service Grievance Board issued preliminary directions requiring the parties to exchange documents and submissions regarding the disability claim, and scheduled a conference call to determine the next steps for all complaints.

The complainant, a Youth Services Manager with permanent medical restrictions, alleged the employer failed to accommodate him when it removed him from the assignment roster ahead of an anticipated strike.

The employer required managers to remain on-site 24/7 during the strike, which conflicted with the complainant's restriction requiring 8-10 hours away from the facility nightly.

The Board found the employer's decision reasonable, as it could not ensure safe access across a picket line and could not ignore the medical restrictions or its safety obligations.

The application was dismissed.

The Complainant challenged her dismissal without cause, alleging bad faith, discrimination on the basis of disability, and reprisal for disclosure of wrongdoing under the Public Service of Ontario Act.

The Employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the complaint for failing to disclose a prima facie case.

The Complainant requested extensive document production to respond to the motion.

The Board ordered the Employer to produce documents relevant to whether a disclosure of wrongdoing occurred, as this was intertwined with the preliminary motion.

However, the Board denied production of documents relevant only to the merits of the discrimination claim at this stage.

The complainant requested that his grievance hearing be conducted by telephone conference due to medical reasons.

The employer objected, arguing the medical note provided was insufficient and that an in-person hearing was necessary to properly respond to the complaint.

The Board found the medical note insufficient as it did not clearly identify the basis for the complainant's inability to attend in person or how the risk of decompensation could be managed.

The Board adjourned the hearing and directed the complainant to provide a more fulsome medical report and a full statement of facts.

The complainant requested a telephone hearing as an accommodation for a disability, asserting he was unable to attend a physical hearing in Toronto.

The employer opposed the request, noting the lack of medical documentation.

The Public Service Grievance Board denied the request for a telephone hearing, directing that the matter be scheduled in the normal course.

The Board held that any request for accommodation of its processes on the basis of disability must be supported by appropriate and sufficient medical documentation outlining the restrictions and limitations.

The complainant, who was off on sick leave, disputed whether the employer's proposed return-to-work plan met her medical restrictions.

She requested that the employer facilitate and pay for a review of the plan by the physician who had previously conducted an Independent Medical Examination.

The employer argued that the duty to accommodate did not require it to initiate and pay for medical approval of a plan it considered appropriate.

The Public Service Grievance Board held that the employer's duty to accommodate is ongoing and includes taking reasonable steps to ensure a return-to-work plan meets the employee's restrictions, especially when genuine concerns are raised.

The Board directed the employer to facilitate the requested review or take other measures to ensure the assignment met the restrictions.

The complainant filed a grievance alleging improper removal from a temporary acting assignment and exclusion from a permanent position competition due to racial bias.

The complaint was filed under Part VI of the Public Service of Ontario Act, which deals with reprisals for disclosing wrongdoing.

The employer raised preliminary objections, arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction under Part VI because there was no allegation of reprisal, and alternatively, that the complaint failed to meet the statutory preconditions for a regular terms and conditions grievance under O. Reg. 378/07.

The Board agreed, finding no reprisal occurred to ground jurisdiction under Part VI, and that the mandatory notice and dispute resolution preconditions for a regular grievance were bypassed.

The complaint was dismissed.

The grievor, a correctional officer, received an anonymous racist and threatening letter at her home, one of several sent to minority employees at the Toronto Jail.

She suffered mental stress, went on leave, and received WSIB benefits.

The parties agreed on the facts and asked the Public Service Grievance Board to determine the appropriate remedy.

The employer argued that the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act precluded further remedy for loss of income.

The Board held that the human rights guarantee against racial harassment was an implicit term of the employment contract.

The Board found it had jurisdiction to compensate for financial losses and mental distress flowing from the breach of this contractual guarantee, distinct from the WSIB's jurisdiction over health injuries.

The Board ordered the employer to pay the difference between her WSIB benefits and her regular income, plus $20,000 for mental distress, but declined to award costs.

The grievors, employed as Labour Relations Officers, alleged systemic discrimination after being unsuccessful in a job competition for a Labour Relations Specialist position.

The employer brought three preliminary motions to limit the scope of evidence at the hearing.

The Grievance Board granted the employer's first motion, excluding evidence related to a previously settled grievance of another employee.

The Board also granted the second motion, limiting the admissible evidence to events occurring within three years prior to the filing of the grievances.

However, the Board denied the employer's third motion to strike certain particulars for lacking detail, finding that the particulars provided were sufficient for the employer to know the case it had to meet.

The grievor filed a grievance alleging the employer failed to accommodate his disability from January 2002 until his voluntary retirement in June 2003.

The grievance was filed in March 2004, over eight months after his retirement.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the grievance due to delay and because the grievor was no longer an employee.

The Public Service Grievance Board allowed the employer's preliminary objection, finding that the delay in grieving was undue and would cause prejudice to the employer, particularly given the intervening voluntary retirement agreement.

The grievance was dismissed.

The grievor, a former Employment Equity Manager, filed four grievances against the Ministry of Transportation.

She alleged that her transfer to a Project Manager position was arbitrary, discriminatory, and the culmination of a series of acts of sexual discrimination and harassment.

She also grieved the employer's handling of a harassment complaint made against her by a subordinate, and the employer's decision not to grant her an interview for a subsequent Employment Equity Manager competition.

The Public Service Grievance Board dismissed all four grievances.

The Board found that the transfer was made for legitimate business reasons and to remove the grievor from a discordant work environment, not for discriminatory reasons.

The Board also found no breach of the duty of fairness in the handling of the complaint against her, and concluded that the decision not to interview her for the competition was a reasonable, conscious decision by the employer.

The Grievor, an Acting Manager of an ambulance service, was dismissed for cause following allegations of ongoing sexual and racial harassment, including inappropriate touching and comments directed at female subordinates.

The Grievor admitted to some inappropriate comments but denied physical contact.

The Public Service Grievance Board found the testimony of the female subordinates credible and concluded that the Grievor engaged in serious misconduct amounting to sexual assault and an abuse of power.

The Board upheld the termination, finding that progressive discipline was not appropriate given the severity of the misconduct.

A dissenting member argued that the penalty was too harsh and that the employer shared blame for tolerating a 'boys club' culture.