Peter Dailleboust

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 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 Board found it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the untimely complaint.

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 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.

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

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

As the Board has no discretion to relieve against this time limit, the complaint was dismissed without a hearing.

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

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 Board found it had no jurisdiction to entertain the untimely complaint.

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

The employer argued the complaint was untimely.

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 under O. Reg. 378/07.

As the Board has no discretion to relieve against this mandatory time limit, it lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter.

The complaint was dismissed without a hearing.

The Union filed five grievances in 2014 on behalf of the grievor, alleging failure to accommodate and other employment-related disputes.

The Employer objected, arguing the grievances were resolved by a comprehensive Memorandum of Settlement signed in August 2012.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that four of the grievances related to facts and circumstances known to the grievor prior to the settlement and were thus fully resolved by its terms.

The fifth grievance was dismissed on the basis of res judicata, as it attempted to re-litigate a claim already decided on its merits.

All five grievances were dismissed.

The applicant filed human rights applications alleging discrimination, harassment, and unjust termination by his former employer.

Prior to filing the applications, the applicant and his union had signed a full and final settlement and release regarding a grievance over his termination.

The respondents requested that the Tribunal dismiss the applications as an abuse of process.

The Tribunal found that the release applied to the allegations in the applications and rejected the applicant's arguments that the settlement was signed under duress or was unconscionable.

The applications were dismissed as an abuse of process.

The Association filed a dispute alleging the Employer violated a Letter of Understanding (LoU) regarding the reclassification of certain IT positions.

The Association argued that the LoU required the Employer to reclassify any position sharing a job description number with those listed in the LoU's appendices.

The Employer argued that the LoU only applied to the specific positions listed in the appendices, which included employee names and position numbers.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the dispute, finding that reading the LoU as a whole, the inclusion of specific employee identifiers indicated the parties did not intend to reclassify all positions sharing a job description number.

The Employer sought an adjournment of five grievances filed by the Union, arguing that a prior Memorandum of Settlement (MOS) precluded the grievances and that another Vice-Chair, who remained seized of the MOS, had exclusive jurisdiction to determine the issue.

The Grievance Settlement Board granted the adjournment for one grievance, finding it related to the implementation of the MOS, but denied the adjournment for the remaining four grievances, finding the Employer did not establish a strong arguable case that the MOS's temporal restrictions barred them.

The grievor, a correctional officer with 21 years of unblemished service, was discharged for using excessive force on two inmates and failing to accurately report the incident.

The grievor admitted to the misconduct prior to suspension and expressed genuine remorse.

The arbitrator found that the employment relationship was not irreparably damaged due to the grievor's long, discipline-free record, his early admission of fault, and the severe financial impact of the termination on his family.

The discharge was substituted with a lengthy suspension, and the employer was directed to reinstate the grievor to a substantially equivalent position that does not involve direct contact with inmates, pursuant to the restrictions in the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act.

The complainant, an Operational Manager who was later promoted to Deputy Superintendent, filed a grievance seeking to have a 5% management salary increase applied to his Deputy Superintendent rate rather than his previous classification rate.

He argued he was being paid less than other Deputy Superintendents performing the same work.

The Public Service Grievance Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the 5% increase was a one-time adjustment effective April 1, 2015, at which time the complainant was still in his previous classification.

The Board held it lacked jurisdiction to grant salary parity based on fairness, as there was no breach of an existing term or condition of employment.

The applicant brought an application for judicial review regarding his employment with the Ontario Provincial Police.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application as an abuse of process, finding that the applicant was attempting to resurrect claims that had been fully resolved by a prior Memorandum of Settlement.

The settlement included a comprehensive release and a complete bar to any further proceedings, including judicial review.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging reprisal and discrimination in employment on the ground of disability.

The respondent requested that the application be deferred pending the resolution of a related grievance proceeding under the Public Service of Ontario Act, 2006.

The Tribunal found that there was substantial overlap between the facts and human rights issues in both proceedings, and deferred the application to avoid concurrent proceedings and the possibility of inconsistent findings.

The complainant, a Sergeant at a correctional centre, filed a grievance alleging he was placed 'on call' without compensation from January 2015 to January 2016 due to delayed vacation approvals and requirements to provide contact information during a labour dispute.

The Public Service Grievance Board found that the employer's delay in approving vacations was a reasonable exercise of management discretion and did not place the complainant on call for the entire year.

However, the Board held that the employer's explicit requirement for the complainant to provide a contact number and remain available for recall during his approved vacation periods constituted being 'on call' under the Compensation Directive.

The grievance was allowed in part, and the complainant was awarded on-call pay for hours outside his regularly scheduled work periods during approved vacations, less any stand-by pay already received.

Two correctional officers grieved discipline imposed following a use of force incident involving an inmate.

One officer was discharged for punching a handcuffed inmate in the head and failing to report it, while the other received a 20-day suspension for allegedly witnessing the punch and failing to report it.

The arbitrator allowed the suspended officer's grievance, finding the employer failed to prove he actually saw the punch.

For the discharged officer, the arbitrator found the use of force was excessive and unjustified, but substituted a lengthy suspension without compensation in place of discharge, citing the officer's 28 years of service, clean disciplinary record, admission of wrongdoing, and genuine remorse.

The complainant filed an application with the Public Service Grievance Board.

The employer advised it had no position to mediate and requested the matter proceed to arbitration.

The Vice-Chair directed the matter be set down for arbitration, noting it would be an inefficient use of resources to schedule mediation.

The Vice-Chair also issued interim orders directing the complainant to provide any remaining particulars and documentary material, and directing the employer to provide its documentary material and response to the application.

The complainants, Operational Managers who had been on acting assignments as Deputy Superintendents, filed a complaint seeking compensation for on-call duties performed during their assignments.

The employer raised preliminary objections regarding timeliness and jurisdiction.

The Public Service Grievance Board found that the notice of proposal to file a complaint was filed well beyond the mandatory 14-day time limit set out in Regulation 378/07, as the complainants were aware of the working conditions at the outset of their assignments.

The Board dismissed the complaint as untimely, noting that even if timely, the complainants had effectively waived their right to claim compensation by accepting the terms without challenge during the assignment.

The Association filed a grievance alleging the Employer violated the collective agreement by incorrectly applying the date of ratification, rather than the job evaluation implementation date, to the retroactive reclassification of certain positions.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the Memorandum of Settlement and the Letter of Understanding expressly stated the reclassifications were effective on the date of ratification.

The Board declined to infer a monetary benefit of retroactivity to the earlier implementation date absent clear language.

Following a finding that the employer breached the collective agreement, the matter of damages was remitted to the parties.

The employer raised a jurisdictional objection regarding the board's authority to award damages resulting from a workplace injury.

On consent, the board adjourned the matter sine die for six months to allow the parties to further consider their positions.

The complainant, a Health Care Manager at a detention centre, was discharged for cause following an investigation into numerous performance deficiencies, including medication errors, failure to secure methadone, and administrative backlog.

She argued the discharge was excessive due to a toxic work environment, understaffing, and lack of progressive discipline.

The Public Service Grievance Board dismissed the complaint, finding that while the employer shared some responsibility for the difficult working conditions, the complainant's serious and repeated failures in judgment, particularly regarding medication control and documentation, irreparably damaged the bond of trust necessary for her managerial role in a correctional setting.