Peter Dailleboust

A group of Sergeants at a correctional centre filed a grievance seeking enhanced overtime pay for time spent working during a labour disruption.

The employer had paid enhanced overtime for certain periods but required a 40-hour straight-time threshold to be met each week and ceased enhanced overtime payments on the second weekend, claiming normal operations had resumed.

The Public Service Grievance Board found that the employer correctly applied the 40-hour threshold for regular scheduled hours.

However, the Board held that the Sergeants who remained at the facility over the second weekend to perform clean-up and preparation work were still engaged in labour disruption related work and were therefore entitled to the enhanced overtime rate until the end of the approved period.

The complainant, a contract Operational Manager at a correctional complex, alleged that his suspension pending investigation and the subsequent non-renewal of his contract were reprisals for reporting a colleague's time theft to the Deputy Minister.

The employer maintained that the suspension was a bona fide response to allegations that the complainant had unauthorized access to restricted keys and areas, and that the contract was not renewed because the complainant declined offers to work at other institutions due to his fears of the 'Code of Silence'.

The Board dismissed the complaints, finding that the employer's actions were motivated by legitimate managerial concerns rather than a desire to punish the complainant for his disclosure of wrongdoing.

The Union filed grievances challenging the Employer's decision to withhold pay and impose discipline on correctional officers who engaged in a work refusal at the Hamilton-Wentworth Detention Centre.

The work refusal was triggered by a missing metal electrical cover plate, which the officers feared could be weaponized.

The officers refused to work unless they were permitted to wear protective vests and a Level 2 search of the entire institution was conducted.

The Ministry of Labour determined that the officers did not have the right to refuse work under section 43 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The Arbitrator agreed, finding that the danger of homemade weapons is inherent in a correctional officer's work and that the Employer's search protocol and vest policy were normal conditions of employment.

The Arbitrator also dismissed the Union's claims that the Employer's actions constituted a reprisal or a lock-out, concluding that the Employer was justified in withholding pay and imposing discipline for the unlawful work refusal.

The parties disputed whether a Memorandum of Settlement signed on November 28, 2014, resolved seven grievances filed by the grievor in 2013 regarding statutory holiday pay.

The Employer argued that the settlement's language withdrawing 'any and all grievances up to today's date' included the 2013 grievances.

The Union argued that the settlement was intended only to cover grievances filed between March 2010 and November 2012, as specified in other clauses.

The Vice-Chair found that, reading the agreement as a whole and in context, the parties intended to resolve only the grievances from 2010 to 2012.

The 2013 grievances were not resolved by the settlement and remain to be scheduled.

The complainant, a manager, grieved the employer's decision to recover a lump sum payment and deny him certain pay improvements announced in late 2015.

The complainant had been on a secondment to a bargaining unit position and returned to his home managerial position in May 2015.

The employer argued that the complainant was ineligible for the lump sum because he was not in a non-bargaining unit position on the required eligibility date of March 31, 2015.

The Board agreed with the employer's interpretation of the compensation policies, finding that pay treatment aligns with the position to which an employee is assigned and working at a given time.

The complaint was dismissed.

The complainant failed to attend the scheduled hearing due to illness.

The Board heard three related applications on the same day and dismissed them.

The Board directed the complainant to advise within 30 days if he sought a further opportunity to be heard, failing which his application would be dismissed.

The complainant did not respond to the direction.

The application was dismissed.

The Union filed grievances alleging the Employer failed to address workplace harassment and bullying against the grievor, seeking compensatory damages for mental distress.

The Employer brought a preliminary motion arguing the Grievance Settlement Board lacked jurisdiction to award such damages because the grievor's mental distress constituted an injury compensable under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act (WSIA).

Relying on previous WSIAT decisions that found the WSIA's restrictions on mental stress claims unconstitutional, the Vice-Chair agreed that the grievor's claim for mental distress resulting from workplace harassment was a compensable injury under the WSIA.

Consequently, the Board upheld the Employer's preliminary objection, ruling it had no jurisdiction to award the requested damages.

The complainant, a Sergeant at the Ottawa Carlton Detention Centre, filed a complaint seeking standby and on-call pay for the period of January 1, 2015, to January 21, 2016.

The Board found that the complainant failed to provide notice of his proposal to file a complaint within the mandatory 14-day time limit set out in O. Reg. 378/07 under the Public Service of Ontario Act, 2006.

As the Board has no discretion to relieve against this time limit, the application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction without a hearing.

The complainant, a Sergeant at the Ottawa Carlton Detention Centre, filed a complaint alleging the employer failed to properly compensate him for standby and on-call pay.

The Public Service Grievance Board reviewed the application and found that the complainant failed to provide notice of his proposal to file a complaint within the mandatory 14-day time limit set out in O. Reg. 378/07.

As the Board has no discretion to relieve against this time limit, it concluded it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the application and dismissed the complaint.

The complainant, a Sergeant at the Ottawa Carlton Detention Centre, filed a complaint seeking standby and on-call pay for the period of January 1, 2015, to January 21, 2016.

The Public Service Grievance Board found that the complainant failed to provide a Notice of proposal to file a complaint within the mandatory 14-day time limit set out in O. Reg. 378/07.

As the time limit is mandatory and the Board has no discretion to relieve against it, the Board concluded it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the application without a hearing.

The complainant, a Sergeant at the Ottawa Carlton Detention Centre, filed a complaint alleging the employer failed to properly compensate him for standby and on-call pay.

The Public Service Grievance Board dismissed the complaint without a hearing, finding that the complainant failed to give notice of his proposal to file a complaint within the mandatory 14-day time limit prescribed by O. Reg. 378/07 under the Public Service of Ontario Act, 2006.

As the time limit is mandatory and the Board has no discretion to relieve against it, the Board lacked jurisdiction to entertain the application.

The complainant, a Sergeant at the Ottawa Carlton Detention Centre, filed a complaint regarding unpaid standby and on-call compensation for the period of January 1, 2015, to January 21, 2016.

The Public Service Grievance Board reviewed the application and found that the complainant failed to provide the required notice of proposal to file a complaint within the mandatory 14-day time limit set out in Ontario Regulation 378/07.

The Board determined it had no jurisdiction to relieve against the strict time limit and dismissed the application without a hearing.

The complainant, an Operational Manager at a detention centre, was terminated for allegedly covering up an excessive use of force incident by a correctional officer and failing in his managerial duties.

The Public Service Grievance Board found that while the complainant failed to properly manage the situation and ensure the use of force was clearly reported, the evidence did not establish that he actively participated in a cover-up or switched occurrence reports.

Applying the McKinley contextual framework, the Board concluded that discharge was an excessive penalty given the complainant's 16 years of discipline-free service and the potential for rehabilitation.

The complainant was reinstated to his position, with the period since his discharge treated as an unpaid suspension.

The Public Service Grievance Board issued a procedural direction after discovering that a previous decision had not been provided to one of the complainants, who was absent from the hearing due to illness.

The Board directed that the previous decision be forwarded to the absent complainant and any other complainants who had not received it.

The absent complainant was granted 30 days to indicate whether he sought a further opportunity to be heard, failing which his complaint would be dismissed.

The complainant, a retired manager rehired as a fixed term part-time management employee, filed a complaint claiming entitlement to 14% in lieu of benefits rather than the 8% he was receiving.

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

The Public Service Grievance Board granted the motion, finding that under section 5(2)(5) of Regulation 378/07, an employee employed for a fixed term on an irregular or on-call basis is not eligible to file a complaint.

The Board also noted that the complainant had not identified a term or condition of employment entitling him to the claimed amount.

The complainants, employed as Sergeants at the Ottawa Carlton Detention Centre, filed applications seeking standby and on-call pay for the period of January 2015 to January 2016.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the applications were untimely under Ontario Regulation 378/07.

The Public Service Grievance Board found that the complainants failed to give notice of their proposal to file a complaint to the Deputy Minister within the mandatory 14-day time limit after becoming aware of the circumstances giving rise to the complaint.

As the time limits are mandatory and the Board has no discretion to extend them, the applications were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The complainant sought a remedy for unpaid on-call pay during vacation periods, regularly scheduled days off (RDOs), and statutory holidays in 2015.

The employer argued the Board lacked jurisdiction to award a remedy for periods more than 14 days prior to the notice of proposal to file a complaint, and that RDOs and statutory holidays were not 'vacation periods'.

The Board held that its remedial jurisdiction was strictly limited to the 14 days prior to the notice.

However, the Board found that RDOs and statutory holidays abutting vacation days should be treated as part of the vacation period for the purpose of on-call pay.

The employer was ordered to pay $324.00 for 324 hours of on-call time.

Following a prior decision reinstating the grievor, a correctional officer discharged for using excessive force, the union challenged the employer's decision to assign him to a receptionist position.

The arbitrator held that the receptionist position was not substantially equivalent to a correctional officer position due to differences in duties, skill, responsibility, and pay structure.

The arbitrator further held that he lacked the statutory authority under section 7(4) of the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act to direct the grievor's assignment to a Control position, as that role involves direct responsibility for inmates.

The issue of whether a Front Door post was substantially equivalent was remitted to the parties.

The complainant, a Sergeant at the Ottawa Carlton Detention Centre, filed a complaint alleging the employer failed to properly compensate him for standby and on-call pay between January 2015 and January 2016.

The Public Service Grievance Board noted that the complainant did not send a notice of proposal to file a complaint until May 2016, well beyond the mandatory 14-day time limit under O. Reg. 378/07.

After the complainant failed to respond to the Board's request for submissions on the timeliness issue, the Board dismissed the complaint without a hearing for lack of jurisdiction.

The complainant filed a complaint alleging the employer failed to properly compensate him for standby and on-call pay.

The Public Service Grievance Board dismissed the complaint without a hearing because the complainant failed to provide a notice of proposal to file a complaint within the mandatory 14-day time limit prescribed by O. Reg. 378/07.

The conduct complained of ended in January 2016, but the notice was not sent until April 2016.