HomeMy WebLinkAboutP-2019-1714.Ewing.20-12-10 Decision
Public Service
Grievance Board
Suite 600
180 Dundas St. West
Toronto, Ontario M5G 1Z8
Tel. (416) 326-1388
Fax (416) 326-1396
Commission des
griefs de la fonction
publique
Bureau 600
180, rue Dundas Ouest
Toronto (Ontario) M5G 1Z8
Tél. : (416) 326-1388
Téléc. : (416) 326-1396
PSGB# P-2019-1714
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
Under
THE PUBLIC SERVICE OF ONTARIO ACT
Before
THE PUBLIC SERVICE GRIEVANCE BOARD
BETWEEN
Ewing Complainant
- and -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of the Solicitor General) Employer
BEFORE Kathleen G. O’Neil Chair
FOR THE
COMPLAINANT
Robert Ewing
SUBMISSIONS
Written submissions completed November
12, 2019
2
Decision
[1] This decision records the Board’s decision to dismiss the complaint of Mr. Ewing as it
deals with pay for performance, a matter removed from the Board’s jurisdiction by
Regulation 378/07.
[2] After the Board received Mr. Ewing’s complaint, dated October 10, 2019, it wrote a
letter to him, dated October 15, noting that the employer had raised a preliminary
objection to the effect that the Public Service Grievance Board [PSGB] does not have
jurisdiction to hear the complaint as it appears to be a complaint regarding the
evaluation of his performance. The letter noted that, as a statutory tribunal, the PSGB
can only deal with those complaints falling within its legislative mandate. This
mandate is limited by Ontario Regulation 378/07. Section 4 (2) of that Regulation
reads in the most relevant part:
(2) The following matters cannot be the subject of a complaint about a working
condition or about a term of employment:
…
4. The evaluation of a public servant’s performance or the method of evaluating
his or her performance.
5. The compensation provided or denied to a public servant as a result of the
evaluation of his or her performance.
0.Reg. 378/07, s. 4(2)
[3] The Board further gave notice that it was considering dismissing the complaint at a
preliminary stage, but noting that Mr. Ewing was entitled to make written submissions
to the Board, before a final decision was made, as to why the Board should not
dismiss his complaint on that basis, due on or before November 4, 2019. Mr. Ewing
replied on November 12, indicating that he was confused as he thought he had sent
the submission immediately after the Solicitor General responded to his complaint.
3
[4] The Board replied by email clarifying that, when referring to submissions due
November 4, it was referring to submissions requested by its letter of October 15,
concerning the possibility of dismissal of his complaint, related to the employer's
preliminary objection in respect of the Board's lack of jurisdiction to hear complaints
related to evaluation or pay for performance. The Board further noted that if Mr.
Ewing had sent submissions since October 15, he could re-send them, as the Board
had not received them, or that he could request an extension of time to do so.
[5] The Board heard nothing further from Mr. Ewing.
[6] Mr. Ewing’s complaint clearly deals with the assignment of his pay for performance
rating, something removed from the Board’s jurisdiction by the regulatory provisions
set out above. In the absence of any submissions as to why the Board should not do
so, the Board hereby dismisses the complaint.
Dated at Toronto, Ontario this 10th day of December, 2020.
“Kathleen G. O’Neil”
_______________________
Kathleen G. O’Neil, Chair