Peter Dailleboust

A hearing was scheduled for a grievance disputing the employer's process for granting an unpaid leave of absence.

The grievor failed to attend the hearing.

The employer requested that the grievance be dismissed.

The arbitrator declined to dismiss the grievance immediately without notice, and ordered the grievor to provide sufficient reasons for his non-attendance within two weeks, failing which the grievance would be dismissed.

The complainant, a public service manager, grieved the calculation of his lump sum maintenance payments for 2012 and subsequent years.

He argued that because he had been in a higher-rated acting assignment for part of the 2010-2011 fiscal year, his subsequent maintenance payments during a period of wage restraint should have been calculated as if the acting assignment had never occurred, yielding a higher pro-rated amount for his home position.

The Public Service Grievance Board dismissed the complaint, finding that while the complainant's position was supported by general equities and pre-2011 policies, the strict wording of the post-2011 compensation policies limited the maintenance payment to an amount 'up to' the actual lump sum paid in respect of the 2010-2011 performance cycle.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the ground of disability, specifically that the respondent failed to accommodate his disability during an investigation into his complaints of workplace harassment and abuse.

The applicant had previously filed a grievance under the Public Service of Ontario Act regarding the harassment and abuse, which was scheduled for arbitration.

The Tribunal found substantial factual overlap between the grievance and the human rights application and deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process to avoid adjudicative duplication.

The union brought a motion for summary judgment alleging the employer breached minutes of settlement.

The settlement placed the grievor in a 12-month temporary assignment as a Probation and Parole Officer, requiring him to complete training and meet job requirements to become permanent, or be returned to his home position as a Correctional Officer.

The grievor remained in the temporary assignment for 21 months before being returned to his home position.

The union argued that by keeping him beyond 12 months, the employer deemed him permanent.

The arbitrator dismissed the motion, finding that the settlement language did not create an automatic deeming provision and that whether the grievor met the job requirements remained a factual issue to be tried.

The union alleged that the employer breached a Minute of Settlement by inadvertently processing a payment for retraining expenses as wages, resulting in improper deductions, and by delaying the provision of required information.

The union sought damages and an order for payment within 7 days.

The arbitrator ordered the employer to rectify the payment error within 14 days and provide a clarifying letter, but declined to award damages because the breaches were inadvertent.

During an arbitration regarding a health and safety work refusal, the employer requested an adjournment of a scheduled hearing date.

The employer argued it did not have sufficient time to prepare for cross-examination because it received the union witness's 32-page will-say statement only the day before the hearing.

The Vice-Chair granted the adjournment, finding it would be unfair to compel the employer to proceed with cross-examination under the circumstances.

The union grieved that the employer was vicariously liable for a co-worker's unauthorized access to the grievor's Employment Insurance file, constituting an intrusion upon seclusion.

The arbitrator found that while the board had jurisdiction to hear the matter under the collective agreement and FIPPA, the employer was not vicariously liable.

The rogue employee's actions were not sufficiently related to authorized conduct, and the employer had adequate privacy policies in place.

The grievor, represented by the Union, alleged that she was subjected to relentless bullying and harassment by her managers and coworkers, which caused her to take an extended sick leave.

She sought damages, sick and vacation credits, and a transfer.

The Employer denied the allegations, asserting that the grievor was being performance managed and that her subjective feelings of mistreatment were not supported by objective evidence.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the Employer's actions, including requesting medical information and managing her performance, were reasonable and did not constitute harassment or bullying.

The Union filed a grievance alleging the Employer violated the collective agreement by prorating merit increases for employees who moved to a new salary schedule mid-year.

The Employer argued that employees were only eligible for merit increases for the six months they were not at the maximum of their salary range.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the collective agreement explicitly provided for prorating of pay for performance but contained no such language for merit increases.

The Board concluded that the Employer violated the collective agreement by limiting the merit increase entitlement and ordered that the affected employees be made whole.

The grievor, a nurse at a correctional facility, grieved that she was verbally assaulted by an Operational Manager and that her health and safety rights were violated when the manager allowed an unsearched, angry member of the public into the secure health care office.

The Grievance Settlement Board upheld the grievance, finding that the manager's out-of-control behaviour and breach of security protocols constituted a verbal assault and a severe violation of the grievor's health and safety rights.

The Board accepted medical evidence that the incident caused the grievor to suffer complex Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and remitted the quantum of damages to the parties for agreement.

The complainant, a manager under the Management Compensation Plan, filed a grievance alleging inequity and arbitrary employer action after he did not receive a lump sum performance payment in 2011/2012 and 2012/2013.

The employer had instituted a wage freeze but provided lump sum payments to certain managers at the top of their pay grade to prevent a reduction in their earnings.

The Public Service Grievance Board dismissed the complaint without a hearing under Rule 11, finding that complaints regarding performance-related pay are excluded from its jurisdiction by regulation.

Furthermore, the complainant failed to establish a prima facie case that the denial of the lump sum breached any existing term or condition of his employment.

The complainants, managers in the Ontario Public Service, filed group complaints alleging unequal and unfair administration of compensation for the 2011/12 and 2012/13 fiscal years.

They argued that lump sum payments given only to managers at the top of their pay grade violated principles of fairness and equal pay.

The employer requested the complaints be dismissed for lack of remedial jurisdiction.

The Public Service Grievance Board dismissed the complaints without a hearing, finding that the claims related to the denial of pay for performance, which is explicitly excluded from the Board's jurisdiction under Regulation 378/07.

The Board also held that it lacked authority to set new terms and conditions of employment or to apply bargaining unit terms to managers.

The complainants, a group of managers, filed a complaint alleging that compensation was applied unequally and unfairly when managers at the top of their pay grade received lump sum payments while others did not.

The employer argued that the complaint related to pay for performance, which is excluded from the Board's jurisdiction.

The Board dismissed the complaint without a hearing, finding that the dispute was fundamentally about the denial of pay for performance and therefore beyond its statutory jurisdiction.

The Board also found no viable claim for unequal pay for equal work under applicable legislation.

The complainants, Operational Managers, filed complaints regarding salary compression with Correctional Officers and wage disparity compared to rehired retired managers.

The employer raised a preliminary objection, arguing the Public Service Grievance Board lacked jurisdiction to grant the requested remedies, which would require setting new terms and conditions of employment.

The Board agreed, finding no existing policy, legislation, or contractual term that provided for the compensation sought.

The complaints were dismissed for want of a prima facie case, as the Board has no authority to set wages or compensation.

The union raised a preliminary motion seeking to open up a 2011 Memorandum of Settlement that resolved two prior grievances filed by the grievor.

The union argued the employer acted in bad faith by deliberately withholding relevant emails prior to the settlement, which amounted to fraud.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the grievor had full knowledge of the facts pertaining to the grievances prior to signing the settlement, as he had written or seen all the emails in question.

The Board concluded the grievor was not misled or deceived, and absent compelling reasons to open up the settlement, the employer's motion to exclude the evidence was granted.

The grievor, a correctional officer with dyslexia, filed a grievance alleging discrimination, harassment, and a poisoned work environment after a co-worker called him a 'retard' and an 'idiot' and allegedly made a threatening gun gesture.

The grievor claimed the harassment continued and the Employer failed to adequately investigate or address his complaints under the Workplace Discrimination and Harassment Policy.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the Employer failed to ensure a workplace free from discrimination and harassment, as its investigation was too narrow and ignored the ongoing nature of the complaints.

The Board awarded the grievor $1,500 in damages for loss of dignity and mental distress.

The complainant, a Probation Manager, filed a grievance alleging that the employer violated the terms and conditions of her employment by denying pay for performance during the 2011/2012 fiscal year wage freeze.

The employer raised a preliminary objection, arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction.

The Public Service Grievance Board upheld the employer's objection, finding that O. Reg. 378/07 explicitly excludes complaints regarding compensation provided or denied as a result of performance evaluation.

The Board also noted it lacked the authority to set new terms and conditions of employment, and dismissed the complaint.

The complainants, non-bargaining unit employees covered by the Management Compensation Plan, filed a grievance regarding the employer's decision to pay a lump sum to employees at the maximum of their salary range while denying it to others during a wage freeze year.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the complaint related to pay for performance and was therefore outside the Board's jurisdiction under O. Reg. 378/07.

The Board agreed, finding that the complaint was essentially about the denial of pay for performance and a request to set new terms and conditions of employment, both of which are beyond its statutory authority.

The complaint was dismissed.

The parties sought clarification regarding the implementation of a prior arbitration award that reinstated the complainant without compensation following a discharge.

The union asked whether the complainant was entitled to accrue continuous service for vacation, compensation option credit days, and pension purposes during the 18-month period between her termination and reinstatement.

The arbitrator clarified that the award was not intended to place the complainant in a more favourable position than an employee on an extended leave of absence without pay under the collective agreement, and answered all questions in the negative.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability in the area of employment, specifically regarding the respondent's failure to provide written documentation during a Workplace Discrimination and Harassment Prevention process.

The respondent requested that the application be deferred because the applicant had also filed a union grievance based on the same facts and human rights issues.

Finding a substantial overlap between the application and the grievance, which was scheduled to be heard by the Grievance Settlement Board, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process.