Other Tribunals - OPSGB

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.

A deputy superintendent challenged his dismissal arising from the preferential treatment of an incarcerated correctional officer and his subsequent statements during the employer's investigation.

The Board found that the complainant, as a senior manager, set the stage for preferential treatment, failed over several days to correct obvious policy breaches, and materially misled investigators by omissions and false statements.

Applying the contextual just-cause approach, the Board held that the misconduct and resulting loss of trust were irreconcilable with continued employment.

Lengthy service and a prior clean record were insufficient mitigating factors.

The complainant, employed in correctional services, filed a complaint alleging a violation of the Human Rights Code.

Following a prior decision determining the Board's jurisdiction, the Board directed the employer to advise whether it objects to providing certain production to the complainant, which had been provided in a related, now-closed complaint.

The complainant, a Health Care Manager in a correctional institution, filed a complaint seeking temporary pandemic pay.

The complaint was held in abeyance pending the outcome of a representative complaint, which was ultimately dismissed because the Board lacked authority to introduce a term of employment not already existing in the contract.

The Board directed the complainant to provide submissions on how they intended to proceed in light of that decision.

The complainant failed to respond to the direction.

Consequently, the Board dismissed the complaint without a hearing.

The complainant, a Health Care Manager in a correctional institution, filed a complaint seeking temporary pandemic pay.

The complaint was held in abeyance pending the outcome of a representative complaint, which was ultimately dismissed.

The Board directed the complainant to provide submissions on how they intended to proceed in light of that decision.

The complainant failed to respond to the direction.

Consequently, the Board dismissed the complaint.

The parties appeared before the Public Service Grievance Board to schedule the hearing of three grievances.

The parties agreed to consolidate the grievances for the purpose of dealing with the employer's preliminary motions.

The Board scheduled the preliminary motions for October 5, 2011, and set deadlines for the exchange of motion materials and the complainant's response.

The grievors, a group of nurse managers, filed a grievance alleging they were denied a salary review to which they were entitled and were treated arbitrarily regarding salary and benefit disparities, specifically wage compression compared to their subordinates.

The employer argued that the process for setting managerial compensation does not involve direct input from managers at the grievors' level and that no specific cyclical review was guaranteed by policy.

The Public Service Grievance Board found that the employer's policies did not entitle the grievors to a specific type or process of salary review, and that they had been included in the cyclical salary reviews applied to other managers.

The Board concluded there was no evidence of arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad faith treatment, and dismissed the grievance.