Ontario Public Service Grievance Board

The Grievor, a Provincial Medical Toxicologist, was declared surplus and her position abolished during a major downsizing initiative by the Ministry of Labour.

She grieved the termination, alleging it was done in bad faith and was a disguised dismissal based on discrimination regarding her previous leaves of absence.

The Public Service Grievance Board found that the Employer made a legitimate business decision to eliminate the position under the Expenditure Control Program.

The Board concluded the Grievor failed to satisfy the onus of proving bad faith, discrimination, or unfairness in the decision-making process, and dismissed the grievance.

The grievor, an Area Manager, filed a grievance alleging that the employer failed to apply its Management Compensation Plan (MCP) Compression Policy, resulting in a significant salary disparity between himself and a subordinate professional engineer.

The employer raised preliminary objections regarding the board's jurisdiction and the timeliness of the grievance.

The Public Service Grievance Board held that it lacked the legal jurisdiction to deal with supervisory salary compression or conversion disputes, or to intervene in the employer's application of the MCP Compression Policy.

The grievance was denied on jurisdictional grounds.

The grievor, a bargaining unit employee represented by OPSEU, was seconded to a management position.

Her secondment was terminated early, and she filed a grievance with the Public Service Grievance Board after OPSEU advised they could not assist her.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

The Board held that under the collective agreement and the Public Service Act, a bargaining unit employee seconded to a management position retains their rights under the collective agreement.

Therefore, the Grievance Settlement Board, not the Public Service Grievance Board, had jurisdiction.

The grievance was dismissed.

The grievor filed a grievance seven years after being disciplined via demotion, arguing he only recently discovered a policy prohibiting demotion as discipline.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the grievance for excessive delay.

The Public Service Grievance Board granted the motion and dismissed the grievance, finding that a seven-year delay was unreasonable and inherently prejudicial to the employer, as the grievor had a responsibility to inquire into his rights at the time of the discipline.

The Grievor alleged unfair treatment and mismanagement by his supervisor regarding two harassment grievances filed against him by a bargaining unit employee, which caused him severe stress and led to sick leave.

The Employer brought preliminary motions to dismiss the grievance for lack of jurisdiction and untimeliness, arguing the underlying grievances were withdrawn and no discipline was imposed.

The Public Service Grievance Board dismissed the Employer's motions, finding that the Grievor was entitled to fairness in the investigation process regardless of the outcome, and that the five-month delay in filing was not excessive given his medical leave.

The grievor filed a grievance objecting that he was not interviewed for an Area Appraisal Analyst position.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the grievance was not arbitrable, arguing that management has the right to select whom to interview and there was no allegation of bias or procedural flaw.

The Public Service Grievance Board agreed with the employer, finding that it lacked jurisdiction to second-guess management's selection of interviewees absent allegations of a flawed, biased, or discriminatory process.

The grievance was dismissed as not arbitrable.

The grievor filed a grievance alleging wrongful termination from her position at the Liquor License Board of Ontario.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the Public Service Grievance Board lacked jurisdiction because the grievor was hired under the Liquor License Act, not the Public Service Act.

The Board agreed, finding that the grievor was not employed under the jurisdiction of a Deputy Minister as required by Regulation 977, and dismissed the grievance for lack of jurisdiction.

The grievor, a professional engineer, sought a retroactive salary increase for 1990 based on an interest arbitration award released in 1991.

Before the award was released, the grievor was promoted to the Senior Management Group (SMG), which is excluded from bringing working conditions grievances to the Public Service Grievance Board.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the grievance for lack of jurisdiction.

The Board denied the motion, finding that the grievor was complaining about a matter that occurred while he was in a classification entitled to grieve, and he did not lose this right merely because he was subsequently promoted.

The grievor, a medical consultant, was released from her employment with the Ministry of Labour due to budget cuts under the Expenditure Control Plan.

The employer used an assessment process to determine which of the five medical consultants would be retained.

The grievor alleged that the assessment was unfair and inaccurate, leading to her wrongful release.

The Public Service Grievance Board found that the assessment process was fundamentally flawed and lacked procedural fairness, as it was conducted hastily, contained significant errors, and provided no opportunity for the incumbents to be interviewed or review their assessments.

The grievance was granted, and the grievor was awarded compensation equal to seven months of notice.

The grievors, former employees of the Liquor Control Board of Ontario (LCBO), filed grievances alleging wrongful dismissal.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the Public Service Grievance Board lacked jurisdiction because the grievors were hired under the Liquor Control Act and were 'crown employees' rather than 'public servants' under the Public Service Act.

The Board agreed, finding that its jurisdiction under Regulation 977 is limited to persons employed in the public service under the jurisdiction of a Deputy Minister.

As the LCBO does not appoint under the Public Service Act, the Board dismissed the grievances for lack of jurisdiction.

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.

The grievor, a management employee, filed a grievance alleging he was denied an interview for a bargaining unit position.

The employer raised a preliminary objection regarding the Board's jurisdiction.

The Board determined that while the grievor had the right to apply for the position, the Board lacked jurisdiction to inquire into the employer's assessment of applicants or the selection process.

As these matters fall within the collective agreement and the jurisdiction of the Grievance Settlement Board, and the grievor's application was in fact considered, the grievance was dismissed.

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.