Peter Dailleboust

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.

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 Union sought the production of documents from the Employer in preparation for a scheduled grievance arbitration hearing.

Following a conference call, the Arbitrator found the requested documents to be arguably relevant and ordered their production, including investigation reports, manager notes, personnel files, and documents the Employer anticipated relying on.

The Employer retained the right to argue privilege or relevance.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the Ontario Public Service Employees Union to provide the Employer with full particulars of all alleged facts relied upon in support of the grievance by February 26, 2021.

The Union filed grievances alleging the Employer failed to adequately address complaints about the conduct of a Provincial Bailiff, Mr. Pacheco, which allegedly contributed to a poisoned work environment.

Mr. Pacheco sought intervenor status as a third party to defend his reputation.

The Arbitrator denied the request, finding that the proceeding focused solely on the Employer's response to the complaints, not the validity of the allegations against Mr. Pacheco.

Therefore, Mr. Pacheco had no direct interest or important stake in the outcome that would justify third-party standing.

The Union sought an order for the production of documents relating to complaints, discipline, and investigations concerning a specific employee's conduct and an allegedly poisoned work environment.

The Arbitrator ordered the Employer to produce the requested documents, subject to privilege, and imposed conditions on the Union's counsel regarding the use and destruction of documents containing personal information.

The Employer requested that the grievances be dismissed due to the grievor's refusal to participate in the rehearing of her case before the Grievance Settlement Board.

The original arbitrator became unable to continue, necessitating a rehearing.

The grievor failed to respond to scheduling requests and indicated she was pursuing a related application at the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario instead.

The arbitrator found that allowing the matter to continue in the face of the grievor's ongoing refusal to participate would be an abuse of process and dismissed the grievances.

During a grievance arbitration hearing held by videoconference, an individual requested intervener status but left the meeting before the issue could be addressed.

The Arbitrator issued directions requiring the individual to confirm his intention to seek intervener status and setting a schedule for the parties to provide their positions and written submissions on the request prior to the next hearing date.

The Public Service Grievance Board directed the employer to remove the complainant's name from the tracking protocol within fourteen days.

The Vice-Chair remained seized of any issues concerning the implementation of the order.

The complainants filed grievances challenging the employer's alteration of their performance ratings and associated compensation.

The employer raised a preliminary objection asserting that the Public Service Grievance Board lacks jurisdiction to entertain the complaints pursuant to section 4(2) of Ontario Regulation 378/07.

Due to COVID-19 restrictions preventing in-person hearings, the Board issued an interim decision establishing a timetable for the parties to file written submissions regarding the jurisdictional objection.

The Union brought a motion to consolidate ten grievances filed by the grievor between 2017 and 2019.

The Employer agreed to consolidate the 2017 and 2019 grievances but objected to including the 2018 grievance, arguing it involved a discrete issue concerning a leave request made to a different manager.

The Arbitrator granted the motion to consolidate all ten grievances, finding that the 2018 grievance alleged discriminatory treatment, which was also raised in the 2019 grievances.

The Arbitrator concluded that hearing the 2018 grievance separately would prejudice the grievor, be inefficient, and risk inconsistent decisions.

The complainant requested reconsideration of a previous Board decision dismissing her complaint of reprisal for disclosing wrongdoing.

The complainant argued that her application to the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario constituted a disclosure of wrongdoing.

The Board dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding that the HRTO application could have been raised at the original hearing.

The Board also dismissed the complainant's second complaint regarding her termination, finding that she failed to establish a prima facie case of reprisal and that the complaint was filed outside the mandatory timelines in the Regulation.

The complainant challenged the employer's refusal to grant his request to exit the Ontario Public Service with enhanced severance benefits under the Voluntary Exit Program (VEP).

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction, arguing the VEP was not an existing term or condition of employment.

The Public Service Grievance Board agreed, finding that the VEP announcement was a pre-contractual representation and did not become a binding term of employment until an application was approved.

The Board concluded it lacked jurisdiction to review the fairness of the decision-making process or to create new terms of employment, and dismissed the complaint.

Three correctional officers with 15 to 20 years of service were dismissed for gross dereliction of duty, including failing to complete watch tours, manipulating the OPMAN system, and failing to complete accurate inmate counts.

The arbitrator found that while the conduct was serious and could justify dismissal, the grievors' remorse, taking of full responsibility, and significant discipline-free service indicated they were rehabilitatable.

The arbitrator rescinded the dismissals and substituted a 20-day suspension without pay, reinstating the grievors without back wages.

Following a prior decision, the Arbitrator convened a conference call to address the status of the grievance.

The parties were encouraged to pursue settlement discussions.

The Union was directed to confirm within 14 days whether the grievance would be withdrawn, failing which a further conference call would be convened to hear submissions on the employer's request to dismiss the grievance.

During a grievance arbitration regarding a workplace incident between two employees represented by different unions, the employer and the grieving union agreed to proceed with an expert witness's testimony via videoconference due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The intervener union objected.

The arbitrator held that there is jurisdiction to compel a videoconference hearing and that, balancing the interests, it was appropriate to proceed by video for the short testimony of the expert witness, subject to adjournment if technical issues arise.

The complainant, an Operational Manager at a correctional centre, required accommodation for family responsibilities, specifically needing to leave work by 17:00.

The employer accommodated this by modifying her regular 06:00-18:00 shifts to 05:00-17:00.

However, for overtime shifts, the employer allowed her to leave at 17:00 but refused to let her start at 05:00, resulting in 11 hours of overtime pay instead of 12.

The complainant argued this was a failure to accommodate.

The Public Service Grievance Board dismissed the complaint, finding the employer's accommodation reasonable.

The duty to accommodate does not require an employer to create work or pay for work it does not need, such as an extra manager between 05:00 and 06:00.

The Union filed grievances on behalf of five employees whose requests for enhanced severance benefits under the Transition Exit Initiative (TEI) were denied by the Employer.

The Employer maintained that the employees' positions were still required and their exit would not support the transformation of the Ontario Public Service.

The Arbitrator found that the Employer properly exercised its broad discretion under Appendix 46 of the Collective Agreement, consistent with previous decisions, and dismissed the grievances.

The complainant, who alleged that a management-initiated workplace discrimination and harassment complaint against her was a reprisal, sought production of various documents from the employer.

The employer objected to several requests on the basis of relevance and overbreadth.

The Public Service Grievance Board granted production of documents related to the complainant's expressions of concern about an employee engagement process, organizational structure documents, and communications regarding the initiation of the harassment complaint.

The Board denied requests for a cultural audit report, an intelligence review, and broad requests for all communications and employee addresses, finding them overbroad or insufficiently connected to the issues in dispute.

The complainant filed four separate complaints alleging discrimination on the basis of family status, disability, and gender.

The parties agreed that the second, third, and fourth complaints should be consolidated as they share common questions of law and fact and arise from the same series of occurrences.

The parties also agreed that the first complaint should be heard separately as it raises discrete issues and is already scheduled for a hearing.

The Board ordered the consolidation of the three later complaints and directed that the first complaint proceed as scheduled.