20 total
Grievance over denial of tuition assistance dismissed; employer's decision was a reasonable exercise of discretion.
The grievor, a Review Officer with the Pay Equity Commission, grieved the employer's denial of his request for tuition assistance for an MBA program.
He alleged the denial was arbitrary, discriminatory, and in bad faith, constituting a reprisal for his previous pay equity complaints and grievances.
The employer maintained the denial was a valid exercise of discretion based on fiscal restraint and the fact that the MBA was not directly related to his core duties.
The Public Service Grievance Board dismissed the grievance, finding no evidence of bad faith or improper motivation, and concluding that the manager's decision was a reasonable exercise of discretion given the fiscal pressures at the time.
Employer ordered to produce executive committee minutes arguably relevant to grievor's tuition assistance request.
During a hearing concerning a grievance over the denial of tuition assistance, the grievor requested an order for the production of minutes from the Pay Equity Office's Executive Committee.
The employer opposed the request, arguing it was late and a fishing expedition.
The Public Service Grievance Board found that the minutes were not covered by a previous production order but were arguably relevant.
The Board ordered the employer to produce any executive committee minutes concerning the grievor's request for tuition assistance.
Motion for further production of documents granted in part in tuition assistance grievance.
During a hearing regarding the denial of tuition assistance for an MBA program, the grievor requested an order for further production of documents from the employer.
The grievor sought documents concerning exemptions applied for by the Pay Equity Commission and records of course approvals for the deciding manager.
The Board granted the request in part, ordering the production of exemption documents limited to a specific timeframe, and ordering the production of the manager's course approval records as they were arguably relevant to the grievor's assertion of a conflict of interest.
Grievance over job competition scores dismissed as revised score still fell below required threshold.
The grievor, a candidate for a Customer Service Agent position, challenged the reasonableness of the scores he received during an evaluation process mandated by Minutes of Settlement.
The evaluation required a minimum score of 70% for the grievor to be offered the position.
The grievor scored 67.24% and challenged the marks awarded for an e-mail exercise and two interview questions.
The arbitrator found that while the grievor was entitled to one additional mark for the e-mail exercise, the interview scores were reasonable and the revised overall score of 68.24% still fell short of the required 70%.
The grievance was dismissed.
Employer ordered to produce specific budget and tuition application records relevant to grievor's tuition assistance grievance.
The grievor requested an order for production of various documents from the employer relating to a grievance over the denial of tuition assistance.
The Vice-Chair reviewed twenty specific requests for production.
The employer was ordered to produce the Pay Equity Commission's budget records for 1998-2003 and information regarding specific managerial tuition applications, as they were arguably relevant to the grievor's claim of pretext and conflict of interest.
Broader requests for Ministry-wide data and historical records were denied as irrelevant.
Grievance over job competition dismissed; employer's assessment of qualifications and ability was reasonable and unbiased.
The union grieved the result of a job competition for two Program Analyst positions, alleging the competition was flawed and unfair to the grievor.
The grievor claimed she was disadvantaged during the software aptitude test due to computer difficulties and that the interview process was rushed and biased.
The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding no evidence of bias, that the interview and testing processes were reasonable and consistent, and that the grievor's failure to report alleged computer difficulties at the time undermined her claim.
The successful candidates were demonstrably more qualified and able.
Adjournment granted to allow employer to seek lifting of family court sealing order on key document.
In a grievance arbitration concerning the grievor's termination, the employer sought an adjournment to apply to family court to lift or amend a sealing order on a Children's Lawyer report.
The employer argued the report was integral to its decision to terminate the grievor.
The union opposed the adjournment, citing delay and the unlikelihood of the employer's success in family court.
The arbitrator granted the adjournment, finding that the delay would not materially prejudice the grievor given the overall length of the proceedings, and that the employer would be prejudiced if denied the opportunity to seek access to a document it relied upon in its decision-making.
Report from sealed family court file ruled inadmissible in discharge arbitration despite employer's prior lawful possession.
In a discharge arbitration, the union brought a motion to exclude a report by the Office of the Children's Lawyer that the employer had relied upon in its decision to terminate the grievor.
The report was part of a family court file that was subsequently sealed by a Superior Court judge.
The employer argued that because it had obtained and relied on the report before the sealing order was made, the report should be admissible to provide a complete picture of the termination decision.
The arbitrator held that the arbitration is a public proceeding and the sealing order must be respected.
The report and any viva voce evidence regarding its contents were ruled inadmissible.
Grievance alleging denial of proper salary review and arbitrary treatment regarding wage compression dismissed.
The grievors, a group of nurse managers, filed a grievance alleging they were denied a salary review to which they were entitled and were treated arbitrarily regarding salary and benefit disparities, specifically wage compression compared to their subordinates.
The employer argued that the process for setting managerial compensation does not involve direct input from managers at the grievors' level and that no specific cyclical review was guaranteed by policy.
The Public Service Grievance Board found that the employer's policies did not entitle the grievors to a specific type or process of salary review, and that they had been included in the cyclical salary reviews applied to other managers.
The Board concluded there was no evidence of arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad faith treatment, and dismissed the grievance.
Grievance dismissed; tax auditor's operation of private accounting business for audited clients justified termination.
The grievor, a Group Manager Audit with the Ministry of Finance, grieved his termination for conflict of interest.
The employer alleged he operated a private accounting and bookkeeping business for various clients, including some he audited, while employed by the Ministry.
The grievor denied the allegations, claiming the business belonged to his brother.
The Public Service Grievance Board found the grievor's evidence lacked credibility and concluded he had operated the business, issued clearance certificates to his own clients who were suppressing sales, and used his position for personal gain.
The Board held this was a serious conflict of interest and breach of trust justifying dismissal.
Board lacks jurisdiction to set managerial compensation but may hear grievance regarding failure to conduct promised salary review.
The employer raised a preliminary objection to the jurisdiction of the Public Service Grievance Board to hear a grievance filed by nurse managers regarding salary and benefit disparities between their classification and the registered nurses who report to them.
The grievors sought a review of their wages, enhanced benefits, and a new mechanism for assessing managerial compensation.
The Board held that it lacks jurisdiction to set terms and conditions of employment, including compensation levels and compression ratios, as that is the exclusive function of the Civil Service Commission.
However, the Board assumed jurisdiction over the portion of the grievance alleging that the employer breached an established policy or promise by failing to conduct a cyclical salary review, and whether the employer acted arbitrarily or in bad faith in that regard.
Appeal dismissed; jurisdiction to challenge a grievance settlement lies with the Grievance Settlement Board.
The appellant appealed an order dismissing her statement of claim, which challenged a settlement reached before the Grievance Settlement Board.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the motion judge that the matter fell within the jurisdiction of the Grievance Settlement Board, regardless of the fact that the appellant's union would not support her.
Employer's rejection of retirement request invalid due to failure to deliver termination notice within statutory period.
The grievor was suspended pending an investigation into criminal charges.
During her suspension, she submitted a request to retire to access her pension benefits due to financial hardship.
The Employer subsequently decided to terminate her employment and reject her retirement request, but failed to deliver the notice of termination to the grievor within the two-week notice period prescribed by section 19 of the Public Service Act.
The Grievance Settlement Board held that even if the Employer had the authority to reject the retirement request, it failed to do so in a timely manner.
The preliminary grievance was upheld, allowing the grievor to retire.
Adjournment granted to allow grievor to attend hearing after alleging lack of notice.
The grievor failed to attend a scheduled hearing date and sent a letter requesting an adjournment to a later scheduled date, alleging lack of proper notice and delayed documentation from union counsel.
The union supported the adjournment, while the employer opposed it.
The Vice-Chair granted the adjournment, noting that since the grievor had notice of and intended to attend the requested date, there was no need to address the notice issue in the proceeding.
Employer ordered to investigate and disclose specific competition file documents in grievance arbitration.
In a grievance arbitration under the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act, a question arose regarding the production of two specific documents from a competition file.
The Grievance Settlement Board issued an order reflecting the employer's agreement to investigate the documents, advise the union of the results, and produce any further arguably relevant documents identified by the selection panel.
No binding settlement was reached where parties continued to negotiate substantive terms after mediation.
The Employer asserted that a binding settlement was reached during a mediation session on February 1, 2002, regarding two grievances filed by the grievor.
The Association argued that no settlement was reached because the handwritten Minutes of Settlement were never signed, the Association's president had not approved the terms, and the parties continued to negotiate substantive terms for months afterward.
The Grievance Settlement Board found that there was no meeting of the minds, as the parties continued to dispute substantive issues such as confidentiality and the timing of compensation payments.
The Board concluded that no settlement was reached and remained seized of the grievances.
Application for judicial review of a grievance settlement dismissed because the unionized employee lacked standing.
The applicant, a former public service employee, sought judicial review of an order of the Crown Employees Grievance Settlement Board that incorporated a settlement reached between his union and his employer regarding his termination.
The applicant argued the termination was a nullity due to lack of delegated authority.
The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the applicant lacked standing to pursue the judicial review, as only the union, as the bargaining agent, had the authority to process and settle the grievance under the collective agreement.
Job competition re-run ordered where employer relied solely on interviews and ignored grievor's ten-year experience.
The union grieved the employer's decision to award a posted Investigator position to an external candidate rather than the grievor, who had performed the identical role for ten years.
The Grievance Settlement Board found the selection process fatally flawed because the employer relied almost entirely on interview scores, failed to assess the candidates' knowledge of specific environmental statutes required by the position specification, and ignored the grievor's past performance appraisals and supervisory references.
The grievance was allowed, and the employer was directed to re-run the competition among the original applicants.
Public Service Grievance Board lacks jurisdiction to hear classification grievances following abolition of Classification Rating Committee.
The grievor filed a classification grievance in 1992, which was referred to the Classification Rating Committee (CRC).
Before the CRC could hear the grievance, legislative amendments abolished the CRC and eliminated the right to grieve classification issues.
The grievor requested that the Public Service Grievance Board (PSGB) hear the grievance.
The PSGB held that it lacked jurisdiction, as it was never granted the authority to hear classification grievances, and the abolition of the CRC did not transfer such jurisdiction to the PSGB.
Grievance dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as the impugned letter was not disciplinary.
The union filed a grievance alleging that a letter dated November 4, 1993, and a subsequent workload arrangement constituted discipline.
The employer raised a preliminary objection that the letter was not disciplinary and was never placed in the grievor's personnel file, meaning the Board lacked jurisdiction.
The Grievance Settlement Board agreed, finding the letter contained no common elements of discipline and was not placed in the file.
The Board also found it lacked jurisdiction to determine the workload issue as there was no allegation of harassment on the face of the grievance.
