Sean Kearney

The grievors requested that the Public Service Grievance Board reconsider its earlier decision dismissing their complaints regarding pay for performance.

The employer objected, arguing the Board was functus officio and lacked statutory authority to reconsider its decisions.

The Board agreed with the employer, finding that as a statutory tribunal, it does not possess inherent powers to reconsider a final decision in the absence of an express legislative mandate.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

The hearing was scheduled to continue on October 4 and 5, 2004, but could not proceed due to the grievor's unavailability and failure to provide full particulars.

The Grievance Settlement Board rescheduled the hearing for June and September 2005.

The Board ordered the union and the grievor to provide the requested particulars and documents to the employer by April 29, 2005, failing which the Board would consider a motion to dismiss the grievances.

The Union grieved that five System Services Specialists (Schedule 6 employees) were entitled to call-back pay under the collective agreement when called back to work following their afternoon rotation.

The Employer argued that Schedule 6 employees are not entitled to premium overtime pay and that the grievors do not work a 'scheduled shift' due to the flexible and unpredictable nature of their hours.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that while Schedule 6 status does not automatically preclude call-back pay, the grievors' work lacked a specified time of work starting and ending on set times on a regular basis, meaning they did not have a 'next scheduled shift' within the meaning of the call-back provision.

The parties executed a settlement placing the grievor, who was returning from long-term income protection, into a new position.

The settlement provided that she would receive a salary equivalent to her former position for six months, referencing Article 7.5 of the collective agreement.

The union argued that under Article 42.11, the grievor was entitled to negotiated wage increases that took effect during this six-month period.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the union's argument, finding that Article 42.11 only applies to employees who receive notice of layoff, which the grievor did not.

The Board held that the settlement terms clearly red-circled the grievor's salary, precluding any wage increases during the six-month period.

The union filed a policy grievance claiming stand-by or on-call pay for employees designated to provide essential or emergency services during the 2002 Ontario Public Service strike.

The union argued that the designation letters and various Ontario Labour Relations Board decisions required these employees to maintain a state of readiness that satisfied the collective agreement criteria for stand-by or on-call pay.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that neither the designation letters nor the OLRB decisions required employees to maintain the specific level of availability corresponding to stand-by or on-call duty.

The grievance was dismissed.

The Ministry alleged that the grievor breached a confidentiality provision in a settlement agreement resolving a harassment grievance.

The settlement included a $1,000 payment and a strict confidentiality clause.

A co-worker later disclosed specific details of the settlement to management, claiming the grievor had shared them.

The grievor denied disclosing the terms.

The arbitrator found the co-worker's knowledge of the specific terms, including the exact amount and the existence of a gag order, was too accurate to be a guess.

Concluding that the grievor breached the confidentiality provision, the arbitrator ordered the grievor to return the $1,000 settlement payment to deter future breaches and protect the integrity of the settlement process.

Two government employees were dismissed after being convicted of sexually assaulting people under their care.

The appellant union grieved their dismissals, and the grievance settlement board ruled that the criminal convictions were only prima facie evidence of guilt, allowing the union to lead rebuttal evidence.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the doctrine of abuse of process bars the relitigation of the employees' guilt for the offences for which they were convicted.

The appeal was dismissed.

The union filed a policy grievance claiming call-back pay for essential and emergency employees who worked unscheduled shifts during an eight-week strike.

The employer argued that call-back pay only applied to employees who had already worked a shift and were called in prior to their next scheduled shift.

The Grievance Settlement Board rejected both parties' extreme positions, finding that the purpose of call-back pay is to compensate for the inconvenience of working on short notice.

The Board held that call-back pay is owed for an unscheduled shift if it was worked with notice less than the maximum the employee could have received for a call back before the strike.

The union filed a grievance challenging a change in the employer's policy regarding the payment of meal allowances for Hearing Clerks at the Assessment Review Board.

Under the new policy, clerks were only reimbursed for meals if they traveled outside their newly expanded regions of responsibility, effectively denying meal allowances for travel over 24 kilometers within those regions.

The arbitrator found that the employer's new policy violated the collective agreement, as the employer could not unilaterally redefine the areas in which a clerk is 'normally working' to avoid paying meal allowances for travel exceeding 24 kilometers from their home.

The grievance was allowed.

The union sought production of a Memorandum of Settlement entered into between the employer and another employee, which was currently under seal.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the employer to obtain, review, and produce the Memorandum of Settlement to union counsel, subject to the implied undertaking that it be used solely for the purposes of the current proceedings.

The union grieved the termination of an unclassified data processing technician, arguing she was entitled to conversion to classified status under the collective agreement after two years of continuous full-time service.

The employer contended there was no continuing need for her work.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the employer's own evidence demonstrated a continuing need for a full complement of technicians and that a vacancy was anticipated due to a planned promotion.

The Board held that a rebuttable presumption of continuing need arises after a substantial period of work, which the employer failed to rebut.

The grievance was allowed, and the employer was ordered to reinstate the grievor with full back pay and benefits.

The union filed a grievance claiming call-back pay for an essential services worker who was called into work on an unscheduled day during a strike.

The employer had paid the basic hourly rate for the hours worked.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that under the essential services agreement, the collective agreement applied without interruption during the strike.

Therefore, the grievor was entitled to call-back pay at time and a half for a minimum of four hours, as specified in the collective agreement.

The grievor, a chaplain, was suspended for insubordination after a dispute over the use of a worship centre.

She claimed she was constructively dismissed and refused to return to work, alleging a poisoned work environment.

The employer continued to pay her for several months, repeatedly requesting that she return to work or request a leave of absence.

When she failed to do so, the employer declared she had abandoned her position under section 20 of the Public Service Act.

The Public Service Grievance Board allowed the employer's preliminary motion and dismissed the grievance, finding the grievor was absent without official leave for more than two weeks without reasonable justification.

The grievor failed to attend two scheduled hearing dates for his six grievances without providing adequate notice or justification.

The employer moved to dismiss the grievances for lack of prosecution.

The Grievance Settlement Board found the grievor's conduct to be an abuse of process and dismissed the grievances.