Ontario Public Service Grievance Board

The complainant, a Staff Sergeant, alleged that the employer eliminated her previous position as Sergeant in bad faith to prevent Sergeants from unionizing.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the Public Service Grievance Board lacked jurisdiction.

The Board upheld the objection, finding that the essence of the complaint was an unfair labour practice allegation, which falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The application was dismissed.

The complainant filed grievances relating to job competitions.

The employer raised preliminary objections seeking to dismiss the complaints on a prima facie basis.

The Board directed the complainant to file written responses to the objections by a specified date.

The complainant failed to file responses or contact the Board.

The employer requested that the complaints be dismissed as abandoned.

The Board directed the complainant to provide written reasons for his failure to file, warning that the complaints would be dismissed if he failed to respond.

The Employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the Complainant's grievance, arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction because the complaint was filed prematurely during the mandatory dispute resolution period.

The Employer also argued that ex parte communications between the Board's Registrar and the Complainant regarding filing timelines raised a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Board dismissed the motion, finding that the premature applications were effectively withdrawn and the final application was filed within the correct statutory window.

The Board further held that the Registrar's communications provided permissible legal information rather than legal advice, and did not prejudice the Employer or raise an apprehension of bias.

The Board issued procedural directions following a case management meeting regarding a grievance under the Public Service of Ontario Act.

The Employer failed to include its position on a Charter argument in its response, and the Complainant failed to properly stipulate agreed and disputed facts.

The Board directed both parties to comply with the previous directions and set a deadline of May 31, 2024, for the Employer to complete its response and for the parties to file a Statement of Agreed Facts and any further allegations.

The complainants, two staff sergeants, filed grievances alleging they were not properly compensated for mandatory rapid antigen testing conducted outside working hours during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The employer raised preliminary objections regarding timeliness and res judicata.

The Public Service Grievance Board found that the complainants knew or ought to have known they were not being paid shortly after the testing requirement was implemented in February 2022.

Because the complaints were not filed within the mandatory 14-day period prescribed by Ontario Regulation 378/07, the Board concluded it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the complaints.

The complainant requested that the Public Service Grievance Board reconsider its decision dismissing his complaint regarding a disciplinary suspension.

The original complaint was dismissed because the complainant failed to file his notice of proposal within the mandatory 14-day time limit under Regulation 378/07 of the Public Service of Ontario Act.

The Board declined to reconsider the decision, finding that the complainant's submissions regarding the merits of the discipline did not address the jurisdictional issue of untimeliness, and the Board lacks discretion to extend the mandatory time limits.

The Public Service Grievance Board issued procedural directions to the parties regarding the filing of agreed facts and written submissions for the employer's preliminary objections.

The parties had previously merged factual assertions with arguments without producing a statement of agreed facts.

The Board directed the employer to file a complete response and ordered the parties to consult and file a Statement of Agreed Facts, along with any disputed facts, by specified deadlines.

The Public Service Grievance Board issued procedural directions to the parties regarding the filing of agreed facts and written submissions for the employer's preliminary objections.

The parties had previously merged their factual assertions with their arguments and failed to produce a statement of agreed facts.

The Board directed the employer to file its complete response, and the parties to consult and file a Statement of Agreed Facts, along with any statements of further allegations for disputed facts, followed by a schedule for arguments and replies.

The complainant, a civilian employee with the OPP, filed a complaint alleging the employer grossly mishandled a workplace investigation and breached its duty of fairness.

The employer raised preliminary objections, arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction as no term or condition of employment was breached, and that the complaint was untimely.

The Public Service Grievance Board dismissed the objections, finding the complainant established a prima facie case that the employer's respectful workplace policy and duty of fairness constituted terms of employment.

The Board also held that while some earlier events fell outside the mandatory 14-day limitation period, recent communications within the period constituted timely allegations of ongoing breaches.

The complainant filed a grievance alleging the employer unfairly declared her position abandoned under section 42 of the Public Service of Ontario Act, 2006.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the complainant failed to file her Notice of Proposal within the mandatory 14-day time limit under O Reg 378/07.

The complainant argued the employer waived this objection by participating in mediation.

The Board held that the statutory time limits are substantive and cannot be waived.

Because the notice was filed 15 days after the complainant became aware of the decision, the Board lacked jurisdiction to hear the complaint on its merits.

The complaint was dismissed.

The complainant received a disciplinary suspension and filed a complaint with the Public Service Grievance Board.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the complainant failed to file a notice of proposal with the deputy minister within the mandatory 14-day period under O. Reg. 378/07.

The Board upheld the objection, finding that the 14-day time limit is jurisdictional and the Board has no discretion to extend it.

The complaint was dismissed.

The complainant filed a grievance alleging he was suspended for three days without just cause for abuse of sick leave.

A hearing on the merits was scheduled, but the complainant failed to attend.

When directed to provide reasons, the complainant explained he had forgotten about the hearing and accepted an overtime shift.

The Employer sought dismissal of the complaint.

The Public Service Grievance Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the complainant's failure to attend because he simply forgot and took a shift indicated a lack of interest in having the complaint adjudicated and a lack of respect for the Board's processes.

The complainant filed a grievance alleging he was disciplined without just cause when suspended for three days for abuse of sick leave.

A mediation/arbitration hearing was scheduled, but the complainant failed to appear without notice.

The Public Service Grievance Board adjourned the proceedings and directed the complainant to provide a written explanation for his failure to appear, failing which the complaint would be dismissed.

The complainant, a Sergeant at a correctional complex, filed a complaint alleging workplace harassment and unfair denial of overtime by the Superintendent.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the complaint was not filed in accordance with the mandatory timelines and procedures under O Reg 378/07.

The Board found that the complainant failed to send his Notice of Proposal to File a Complaint to the correct Deputy Minister and failed to do so within the required 14-day period.

Consequently, the Board held it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and dismissed it.

The complainants, managerial employees, sought compensation for mandatory rapid antigen testing (RAT) performed outside working hours, relying on a prior grievance settlement for unionized staff.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the complaints were filed outside the mandatory 14-day time limit under O. Reg. 378/07.

The Board agreed, finding that the time limit began when the RAT initiative was implemented in February 2022, not when the complainants learned of the union settlement in March 2023.

As the Board lacks jurisdiction to extend the mandatory time limit, the complaints were dismissed.

The complainant, a retired public servant, filed a grievance claiming enhanced severance pay following a restructuring announcement.

The employer raised four preliminary objections to the Board's jurisdiction.

The Board dismissed the first three objections, finding that the complainant established a prima facie case, filed his notice of proposal within the 14-day time limit, and was eligible to file despite being retired.

However, the Board sustained the fourth objection, finding that the complaint was filed one day before the expiry of the mandatory 30-day dispute resolution period.

As the time limits are mandatory, the premature filing left the Board without jurisdiction, and the complaint was dismissed.

The Complainant, a Sergeant, filed a grievance challenging his treatment during a Ministry restructuring that offered him a choice between a promotion to Staff Sergeant or reclassification to an OPSEU-represented Correctional Supervisor position.

The Employer brought a preliminary objection arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction over classification assignments and that the complaint failed to disclose a prima facie case.

The Board dismissed the application without a hearing, finding that the Complainant had elected the promotion and thus his complaint regarding the pension consequences of the unselected reclassification option was moot.

The application alleged no violation of existing terms and conditions of employment.

The Complainants, Sergeants at the Quinte Detention Centre, filed applications challenging their planned relocation to the Central East Correctional Centre after being deemed to have elected reclassification to a Correctional Supervisor position.

The Employer raised a preliminary objection, arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction over classification matters under O. Reg. 378/07.

The Board found it premature to determine its jurisdiction, as a recent Grievance Settlement Board decision had ruled the Employer's placement process violated the OPSEU collective agreement.

The applications were adjourned sine die pending the Employer's response to the GSB decision.