IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION. Under. THE PUBLIC SERVICE ACT Before THE PUBLIC SERVICE GRIEVANCE BOARD. Oral Binda. - and -
|
|
- Barrie Barrett
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Public Service Grievance Board Suite Dundas St. West Toronto, Ontario M5G 1Z8 Tel. (416) Fax (416) Commission des griefs de la fonction publique Bureau , rue Dundas Ouest Toronto (Ontario) M5G 1Z8 Tél. : (416) Téléc. : (416) P IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION Under THE PUBLIC SERVICE ACT Before THE PUBLIC SERVICE GRIEVANCE BOARD BETWEEN Oral Binda Complainant - and - The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Environment) Employer BEFORE Kathleen G. O Neil Vice-Chair FOR THE COMPLAINANT FOR THE EMPLOYER HEARING SUBMISSIONS Oral Binda Cathy Phan Ministry of Government Services Labour Practice Group Counsel December 14, February 2, 2012.
2 - 2 - Decision [1] This decision deals with preliminary issues raised by the employer in regards to the grievance of Mr. Oral Binda in which he complains that he has been the subject of a reprisal for disclosing wrongdoing by his superiors. The employer takes the position that the Board should dismiss the case without a hearing on the merits, either because it is not a complaint over which the board has jurisdiction, or because it is untimely. As to jurisdiction, the employer says that the complainant has not provided proper notice to the deputy minister as required by the Public Service of Ontario Act, 2006 (abbreviated below as PSOA), and has not provided sufficient allegations of reprisal that would allow the board to take jurisdiction pursuant to Part VI of the PSOA, sometimes referred to conversationally as the "whistleblower provisions". Mr. Binda, the complainant, urges the Board to hear the matter. [2] Excerpts from statute and regulations considered in this decision are appended to these reasons for ease of reference. Procedural Context and Nature of the Complaint [3] At this stage, we are dealing only with the preliminary motion from the employer challenging the Board s jurisdiction to proceed further. The question to be answered in this decision is whether the Board has the power to proceed with the resolution of the complainant s issues as he requests. In dealing with motions of this kind, the Board, in line with its usual practice, treats the facts as asserted in the complaint as if they were true and would be provable at a hearing where evidence was heard under oath, but does not make any findings of fact. If there were a hearing on the merits, there is the possibility that the Board would find that the facts were different from those asserted by the complainant, especially as the employer would also have an opportunity to put in evidence that might put a different light on the complainant s view of the facts, as the employer has denied all the allegations made by the complainant. The facts set out below do not represent all that Mr. Binda wrote in his complaint and said at the hearing, but are those most relevant to this decision. For the purposes of this decision, which only deals with the jurisdictional issue, it is not necessary to name those to whom the complainant attributes wrongdoing. [4] Mr. Binda, a Senior Manager in the Ministry of Environment, has complained to the Board to the effect that he has been harassed, bullied and is the victim of reprisals because he reported wrongdoing. He states that he is a member of a minority, and has been treated with a lack of respect, while observing favouritism towards individuals of non-diverse cultures. He also finds the human resources practices in his branch to be unfair, and to
3 - 3 - include favouritism, for example, in respect of hirings, promotions and career development opportunities. He states that he made complaints verbally and in writing to his Assistant Deputy Minister and shared the struggles he faced as a minority with a Deputy Minister from another Ministry with whom he was paired in a mentorship relationship. He later met with his own Deputy Minister about the issues. The complainant said he had not requested the Deputy take action for fear of repercussions, but he became convinced action was taken nonetheless and that he was now a walking target for members of other ranks of the management team. He states that he is a minority who worked very hard to get where he is and feels he is being taken advantage of and has had racial slurs directed at him by a manager. [5] In the material filed with this Board, Mr. Binda alleges that, as a result of having reported wrongdoing to upper management, his superior constructed claims to launch a WDHP claim against him, which led to a suspension pending investigation of which he was advised on November 23, As of the hearing date of this matter, he had been on paid leave for more than a year, but states that he has nonetheless suffered both monetary and other losses. Mr. Binda describes stress, anxiety and other negative health effects from the WDHP process following the complaint against him as well. [6] Those of the allegations set out in the complainant s material which are associated with specific dates range from 2009 to January This complaint was filed with the Board on September 26, 2011, on a form entitled Political Activity/Disclosing and Investigating Wrongdoing. Part VI of the PSOA provides for directives to be established and disseminated to public servants for how such disclosures are to be made. Counsel advises those directives have established that disclosures would normally be made in the first instance to the Ethics Executive. The designation of the Ethics Executive varies according to the level and type of public servant making the disclosure. Further to s. 60(2) of the PSOA, the Ethics Executive for the complainant would be the Deputy Minister, as Mr. Binda is an employee of a Ministry. [7] On April 28, 2011, about five months prior to filing this complaint with the Board, Mr. Binda wrote the Office of the Integrity Commissioner, although that letter was not entered in evidence. That office responded in writing, indicating the file was under review, and then communicating the results of that review. These letters, dated May 12 and September 28, 2011, respectively, were produced at the hearing of this matter. The second letter indicates that the Commissioner had determined that she did not have jurisdiction to deal with Mr. Binda s allegations. Explaining the process, the letter indicated as follows:
4 - 4 - Upon receipt of a disclosure this Office must first determine whether the subject matter is a disclosure of potential wrongdoing. Wrongdoing is defined in section 108 of the PSOA. While a discloser may feel that a matter is a wrongdoing as it relates to them personally, it may not be a wrongdoing as defined in the PSOA. If the matter is not a potential wrongdoing as defined in the PSOA, this Office cannot receive the disclosure. If this Office can receive the disclosure of potential wrongdoing, an initial assessment under section 117 of the PSOA must be performed. If any of the circumstances listed in section 117 apply this Office is required by the PSOA to refuse to deal with the disclosure. There are no override powers or discretion in this regard. [8] The letter from the Commissioner's office, while emphasizing that it had made no finding about whether a wrongdoing had occurred, found that, although the allegations had been received as a disclosure of potential wrongdoing, it must refuse to deal with Mr. Binda s disclosure. This was based on a finding, pursuant to s of the PSOA, that it was an employment matter that could be dealt with by a dispute resolution mechanism, such as the Human Rights Tribunal or the Public Service Grievance Board. Their summary of the allegations noted that they included allegations of contravention of the Ontario Human Rights Code and the Occupational Health and Safety Act involving bullying and discriminating against Mr. Binda in employment on the basis of a prohibited ground. As well, they included allegations to the effect that the employer failed to deal properly with a complaint regarding workplace discrimination and harassment and the encouragement by representatives of the employer to other public servants to file complaints under the Workplace Discrimination and Harassment Prevention Policy (WDHP) against him as a consequence of verbal complaints he had made to two deputy ministers concerning his superior s conduct toward him. [9] At the hearing of this motion, the Board afforded both sides time to make further submissions in writing on the timeliness aspect of the complaint, all of which I have reviewed in coming to this decision. * * * Jurisdiction under Part VI of the PSOA - Disclosing and Investigating Wrongdoing. [10] Since Mr. Binda made clear that he intended this complaint to be filed under Part VI as a complaint of reprisal for disclosing wrongdoing, it is appropriate to deal first with that portion of the employer s motion related to Part VI. [11] Counsel for the employer argued that the complaint is really a general allegation of harassment, which does not fit within the definition of wrongdoing set out in Part VI of the
5 - 5 - PSOA. The Board is invited to conclude that no report of wrongdoing as defined in Part VI of PSOA had been made by the complainant, and therefore, there could be no reprisal of the sort governed by those provisions. It is the employer s position that in order for the Board to have jurisdiction under the reprisal sections, there must be a disclosure of the sort provided for in Part VI of PSOA. Counsel submits that the consequence of a lack of the type of disclosure contemplated by Part VI is that the reprisal sections are not triggered, and therefore, there is no proper complaint under Part VI before the Board, so that the complaint should be dismissed. Further, counsel notes that it is not evident that the person accused of carrying out the reprisal even knew of the complainant s conversations with the Deputy Minister or the issues discussed. [12] By contrast, Mr. Binda maintains that he did report wrongdoing, and discussed it with his Deputy Minister in the summer of 2010, having earlier spoken to the Assistant Deputy Minister and a Human Resources representative about the problems he was facing. He is convinced that his disclosure got back to the people about whom he complained and that he has suffered various negative consequences at work because of his disclosure, including a suspension as a result of the encouragement of a contrived WDHP complaint. [13] The definition of wrongdoing in the PSOA is as follows: 108. (1) In this Part, wrongdoing means, (a) a contravention by a public servant, a minister or parliamentary assistant of an Act of the Assembly or of the Parliament of Canada, or of a regulation made under such an Act, (b) an act or omission of a public servant, a minister or parliamentary assistant that creates a grave danger to the life, health or safety of persons or to the environment, where the danger is unreasonable having regard to his or her duties, powers and functions and any other relevant circumstance, (c) gross mismanagement by a public servant, a minister or parliamentary assistant in the work of the public service of Ontario, (d) directing or counselling wrongdoing within the meaning of clauses (a) to (c) by a public servant, a minister or parliamentary assistant. 2006, c. 35, Sched. A, s. 108 (1). [14] The statute then provides how a disclosure of wrongdoing may be made: 114. Where a public servant or former public servant has reason to believe that there has been wrongdoing, he or she may disclose the
6 - 6 - wrongdoing in accordance with the procedures established under section , c. 35, Sched. A, s Directives, Public Service Commission 115. (1) The Public Service Commission may by directive establish procedures to deal with disclosures of wrongdoing by, (a) a public servant who works in a ministry; [15] The section of Part VI of PSOA dealing with reprisals is s. 139, which reads as follows: 139. (1) No person shall take a reprisal against a public servant because he or she has, (a) sought advice about making a disclosure about wrongdoing accordance with this Part; (b) made a disclosure about wrongdoing in accordance with this Part; (c) co-operated in an investigation or other process related to a disclosure of wrongdoing made in accordance with this Part; (d) acted in compliance with this Part; or (e) sought enforcement of this Part. 2006, c. 35, Sched. A, s. 139 (1). (2) For the purposes of subsection (1), a reprisal is any measure taken against a public servant that adversely affects his or her employment or appointment and includes but is not limited to, (a) ending or threatening to end a public servant s employment or appointment; (b) disciplining or suspending or threatening to discipline or suspend a public servant; (c) imposing or threatening to impose a penalty related to the employment or appointment of a public servant; (d) intimidating or coercing a public servant in relation to his or her employment or appointment. 2006, c. 35, Sched. A, s. 139 (2). [16] It can be seen that this part of the PSOA prohibits a reprisal, defined broadly to include any measure with an adverse employment consequence, because a public servant has made a disclosure alleging wrongdoing in accordance with this Part. The phrase in accordance with this Part incorporates a number of the provisions of Part VI. Since the complainant is an employee of a Ministry, it would appear that disclosing alleged wrongdoing in accordance with Part VI would involve elements such as: making a disclosure that alleges wrongdoing of the kind defined in s. 108, and in accordance with the directives established under s. 115 (1)
7 - 7 - which provide for disclosure in most circumstances to the Deputy Minister. There are also circumstances in which disclosure directly to the Integrity Commissioner is contemplated. [17] The Board s jurisdiction over reprisal complaints comes from subsections 140 (1) and (3) of PSOA, which read as follows: 140. (1) A public servant described in subsection (2), (3) or (4) may complain under this section that he or she has suffered a reprisal prohibited by section 139. (3) A public servant employed under Part III who is not subject to the terms and conditions of a collective agreement may file the complaint with the Public Service Grievance Board. [18] I note that, although the provisions of Part VI have been in effect for a few years now, the Board has not received many complaints of reprisal under that Part, and thus its jurisprudence on the subject is in its infancy. This is the first case considering whether the subject matter disclosed is of a kind sufficient to base a complaint under Part VI. As noted, it is the employer s position that the complainant is alleging general harassment, something not covered by the definition in s. 108, set out above, so that the Board has no jurisdiction over the matter under Part VI. The complainant disagrees. [19] In order for the Board to be able to hear a reprisal complaint under Part VI, it must be brought by a public servant not subject to a collective agreement and it must allege a reprisal prohibited by section 139. It is not disputed that the complainant is excluded from collective bargaining as a manager, and thus this is a proper forum if the other elements of a complaint within the Board s jurisdiction are present. One of the triggers for prohibited reprisals is a disclosure of wrongdoing under Part VI. The kinds of wrongdoing by public servants listed in section 108 of Part VI of PSOA are divided into four categories which can be summarized as: (a) breach of a statute or regulation, whether provincial or federal; (b) an act or omission that creates a grave and unreasonable danger ; (c) gross mismanagement; (d) directing or counselling such wrongdoing. [20] The complainant s case is based on the disclosure of wrongdoing by public servants to upper management, including his deputy minister, which he alleges resulted in negative targeting at work, including the mounting of a WDHP complaint against him. There is much in the complaint that falls within employer counsel s characterization of general harassment,
8 - 8 - and which would not obviously fall into any of the four broad categories of wrongdoing set out in section 108. However, the complainant also states that he disclosed matters of favouritism associated with non-diverse cultures and difficulties at work which he attributes to the fact that he is a member of a minority. The Form 1 filed with the Board, in which he set out his complaint, does not refer explicitly to a breach of statute as part of the disclosures of wrongdoing that he made. However, what I understand to be the same disclosure is described in the summary of the allegations made by the complainant in the context of his later contact with the Office of the Integrity Commissioner, contained in the correspondence presented at the hearing, as involving allegations of breaches of both the Human Rights Code and the Occupational Health and Safety Act. Allegations of negative employment consequences based on distinctions based in race, place of origin or ethnicity are reasonably viewed as allegations of a breach of the Human Rights Code, in any event. [21] The letter from the Office of the Integrity Commissioner, as noted above, communicated the decision that, although it had received his allegations as a potential disclosure of wrongdoing, that office would not deal with the matter as it was an employment issue better dealt with either at the Human Rights Tribunal or this Board. I note that the Commissioner did not find that what had been disclosed fell outside the definition of wrongdoing in the PSOA or that there had been such a substantial delay between the disclosure and the incidents that were the subject matter of the disclosure, that proceeding would serve no useful purpose, an option available under s [22] I am persuaded that to the extent the complainant s disclosure to the Deputy Minister included allegations of breach of a statute such as the Human Rights Code, it qualifies as a disclosure of wrongdoing under PSOA. It was not argued that the disclosure did not follow the relevant directives, or that his disclosure to the Deputy Minister, who is also the relevant Ethics Executive, did not qualify procedurally as a disclosure under Part VI. In the circumstances, it is my view that there is a sufficient basis to find that the complainant did make a disclosure of alleged wrongdoing in accordance with Part VI. [23] I am also persuaded that some of the allegations set out in the complaint amount to allegations of reprisal for disclosing allegations of wrongdoing to upper management. Most centrally, a WDHP investigation, resulting in his removal from the workplace and associated losses, is alleged to have been contrived in response to his disclosures of wrongdoing. This qualifies as an adverse employment consequence of the type contemplated by subsections 139(2) (b) and (c), set out above. In sum, I am of the view that there is a sufficient basis for
9 - 9 - the Board to entertain this complaint in accordance with its jurisdiction under Part VI of the PSOA. [24] The complaint as written makes a variety of other allegations about improper behaviour and lack of fair process which are undated and not all in a time sequence in which they could be part of a reprisal for the disclosures in the summer of Rather, a number of them appear to be part of a narrative of events which the complainant sees as the wrongdoing which lead to his disclosures to the two deputy ministers. The complainant only asked the Board to entertain his complaint under Part VI. Thus, it is not strictly necessary to address the employer s submissions about the status of this complaint under the Board s more general jurisdiction to hear complaints concerning terms and conditions of employment. However, given the employer s detailed submissions, the Board finds it appropriate to address them to the extent necessary to illustrate the difference in the legislature s approach to the two different sources of the Board s jurisdiction under Part VI and Regulation 378/07. Timeliness and Procedural requirements of Regulation 378/07 [25] The Board s more general jurisdiction to hear complaints concerning terms and conditions of employment of provincial government employees excluded from collective bargaining is subject to the provisions of Regulation 378/07 under the PSOA. Employer counsel submitted that, by lodging his complaint under Part VI, the complainant had attempted to bypass the mandatory requirements of Regulation 378/07 in terms of both timeliness and the required period for dispute resolution, something the Board should not allow. [26] In this second prong of its preliminary submissions, the employer submits that the complaint should be dismissed on the additional basis that the mandatory provisions of Sections 8 and 9 of the regulation have been ignored. These provisions require that notice of proposal to file a complaint must be given to the Deputy Minister and that a complainant is not eligible to file a grievance until the expiry of the period of at least thirty days prescribed for internal dispute resolution. In support of this argument, counsel refers to the Board s recent decisions in Muldoon v. Ontario (Community Safety and Correctional Services), 2011 CanLII (ON PSGB) and Jackson v. Ontario (Community Safety and Correctional Services), 2011 CanLII (ON PSGB), which held that if the prescribed process is not followed, there is no jurisdiction for the Board to hear the matter. [27] As to the requirement under s. 8(1) of Regulation 378/07 that a complainant give notice to his or her deputy minister, the employer argues firstly that Mr. Binda s meeting with the deputy minister of another ministry as part of a mentorship program, does not amount to
10 notice under the regulation, as she is not his deputy minister, meaning the deputy minister of the complainant s home ministry. As to Mr. Binda s meeting with the Deputy Minister of the Environment in the summer of 2010, counsel submits that this is not proper notice, as notice is required to be in writing. Counsel submits that the fact that section 8(3) of the Regulation states that the notice must set out the reasons for the complaint, suggests writing, since reasons cannot be set out in a verbal statement. This is supported by Section 3(1) of the Board s rules, in counsel s submission, which requires that an application to the Board shall be delivered to the Board in Form 1 and must include a copy of the complaint that was filed with the deputy minister. [28] In the further alternative, counsel argues that even if one were to give credence to the idea that a verbal meeting could amount to notice, the complaint is almost a year out of time, and should be dismissed as being grossly out of time. [29] Further, the employer argues that the Board has no jurisdiction to extend the time limits, making a very similar argument to the one outlined, but not decided, in the Board s decision in Lee v. Ontario (Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services), 2011 CanLII (ON PSGB) as follows: Further, counsel for the employer argues that the timelines in section 8 (1) of Regulation 378/07 are mandatory timelines that are not able to be extended by the Board. Counsel refers to Section 54 of the former regulation 977, no longer in effect, which provided the Board with jurisdiction to extend time limits. Counsel argues that when the new regulation 378/07 was implemented, it contained no similar provision, and thus any jurisdiction the Board had to extend time limits is no longer applicable. In support of the employer s arguments on timeliness, counsel relies on the following case law: Daniel Beauchamp, 2010 Can LII 6691 and 11287, (ON L.R.B.), Service Employees International Union, Local 204 v. Leisureworld Nursing Homes Ltd., [1997] O.J. No. 1469, 99 O.A.C. (Divisional Court), affirmed by the Court of Appeal with brief reasons reported at [1997] O.J. No. 4815, 75 A.C.W.S. (3d) 854 (Ont. C. A.) and Kris Persad v. TTC et. al., 2009 HRTO 325 (CanLII), 2009 HRTO 325 (Can LII). In the Daniel Beauchamp decisions, the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) found that in dealing with its jurisdiction over appeals under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, there was no language allowing for the extension of the timelines. In the result, despite sympathetic facts, which included a one day delay caused by solicitor inadvertence, the appeal was dismissed as untimely. In doing so, the OLRB also found that its broad power to control its own procedure did not give it jurisdiction to amend the timelines set by statute. In the Divisional Court's decision in Leisureworld, affirmed on appeal, cited above, the Court found it to be unambiguous that when words relating to the power to extend time limits in provisions of collective agreements related to arbitration procedures were dropped from the Labour Relations Act, arbitrators lost jurisdiction to grant relief from time limits for referral to arbitration, as opposed to steps within the grievance procedure leading to the referral to arbitration. Counsel argues that the amendment to the regulation resulting in the absence of the provisions providing for the extension of time
11 limits in Regulation 378/07 has similarly removed this Board s jurisdiction to extend time lines. Without a statutory authority to extend the time limits, such as that in the Labour Relations Act or the Human Rights Code, an example of which is in the Persad case, cited above, counsel argues that there is no general equitable jurisdiction to extend time limits. [30] Counsel also refers to Re Metropolitan Toronto Separate School Board and O.E.C.T.A. (Re) [1996] O.L.A.A. No. 593, 44 C.L.A.S. 239, to support the argument that the Board has no jurisdiction to amend time limits in the absence of provisions such as those in the Labour Relations Act. This was a case decided under the School Boards and Teachers Collective Bargaining Act, which did not grant the arbitration board the authority to relieve against the mandatory times limits, leading the arbitration board to dismiss the grievance. [31] The complainant responds to the employer s position that any disclosure at a meeting with a deputy minister does not meet the mandatory notice requirements under section 8 of Regulation 378/07 and that the complaint was not filed to the Board in a timely manner with the submission that he was not required to comply with the mandatory notice requirements or timelines, as his complaint was made under Part VI of the Act. Noting that Section 8 (1), concerning notice of proposal to file a complaint, does not apply with respect to a complaint under Part VI of the Act, Mr. Binda asked the Board to dismiss the employer s argument and find that the case law cited is not applicable to this matter. [32] As the Board found in Jackson, cited above, where a matter does not fit within Part VI, a complainant must follow the process set out in the regulation for the Board to be able to hear the matter. Since no notice had been given to the Deputy Minister in that case, the Board dismissed the complaint. In Muldoon, there had similarly been no notice, leading to the same result, although no issue related to Part VI had been raised. The crucial difference between the circumstances of this case and those in Jackson and Muldoon is that Mr. Binda has only asked the Board to consider this as a complaint of reprisal under Part VI, and has not asked that the Board consider it under its more general jurisdiction which remains subject to the procedural and timeliness provisions of Regulation 378/07. I have found above that this complaint is within the Board s jurisdiction under Part VI. Subsections 8(2) and 9(2) of Regulation 378/07 provide that the Notice to the Deputy Minister and the requirement to allow a period of dispute resolution prior to referral to the Board are not applicable to a complaint under Part VI. Given those specific provisions, it is clear that, for the purposes of the viability of a complaint under Part VI, it is not necessary to consider the extent of compliance with subsections 8(1), 9(1) and 10(1) of the regulation, which provide for notice to the deputy Minister, a period of internal dispute resolution, and time lines for
12 referral to the Board, which are computed with reference to section 9. In the result, it is not necessary to determine in this case whether notice under subsection 8(1) of the regulation can be given to the Deputy Minister verbally, or to address the employer s argument concerning the lack of jurisdiction to extend the time lines. Moreover, I note that the Legislature did not insert any provision related to intent to avoid the timelines and procedural requirements under Regulation 378/07 when it directed in subsections 8(2) and 9(2) of Regulation 378/07, respectively, that subsections 8(1) and 9(1) did not apply and did not affect complaints under Part VI of the PSOA. [33] With that said, it is perhaps important to be clear that, in the circumstances of this case, a finding that the matter may proceed under Part VI relates to the allegation of reprisal for the reporting of wrongdoing, and does not mean the Board will separately adjudicate any nonreprisal allegations, which would be subject to the provisions of Regulation 378/07. It is the allegation of reprisal for reporting of wrongdoing which must be the Board s focus under Part VI. What evidence is relevant to that issue will be determined as necessary, if the matter proceeds to a hearing. [34] At this juncture of the proceedings, the parties are directed to discuss whether any issues can be resolved without the necessity of a further hearing, in aid of which mediation may be scheduled. [35] For the reasons set out above, the complaint may proceed under Part VI of the PSOA. The Board remains seized of any other issues necessary to the determination of this matter. Dated at Toronto this 9 th day of March Kathleen G. O Neil, Vice-Chair
13 APPENDIX A Excerpt from the Public Service of Ontario Act, PART VI 62. (1) The ethics executive for a public servant is determined as follows: 1. The ethics executive for a public servant employed under Part III who works in a ministry, other than in a minister s office, is the deputy minister (1) In this Part, wrongdoing means, (a) a contravention by a public servant, a minister or parliamentary assistant of an Act of the Assembly or of the Parliament of Canada, or of a regulation made under such an Act, (b) an act or omission of a public servant, a minister or parliamentary assistant that creates a grave danger to the life, health or safety of persons or to the environment, where the danger is unreasonable having regard to his or her duties, powers and functions and any other relevant circumstance, (c) gross mismanagement by a public servant, a minister or parliamentary assistant in the work of the public service of Ontario, (d) directing or counselling wrongdoing within the meaning of clauses (a) to (c) by a public servant, a minister or parliamentary assistant. 2006, c. 35, Sched. A, s. 108 (1) This Part applies to wrongdoing associated with the public service of Ontario and its work. 2006, c. 35, Sched. A, s The Integrity Commissioner and every person or body to whom a matter is referred under subsection 118 (2), 122 (2) or 123 (1) shall carry out their functions under this Part in a manner that, (a) is fair and is as informal and expeditious as possible; and (b) protects the identities of persons involved in disclosures of wrongdoing, including persons who make disclosures, witnesses and persons alleged to be responsible for wrongdoing except where the interests of fairness require that a person s identity be disclosed to one or more persons. 2006, c. 35, Sched. A, s A public servant or former public servant may disclose wrongdoing to the Integrity Commissioner if,
14 (a) the public servant or former public servant has reason to believe that it would not be appropriate to disclose the wrongdoing in accordance with the directives issued under section 115; (b) the public servant or former public servant has already disclosed the wrongdoing in accordance with the directives issued under section 115 and has concerns that the matter is not being dealt with appropriately; or (c) directives applying to the public servant or former public servant have not been issued under section , c. 35, Sched. A, s Initial assessment by Integrity Commissioner 117. Where the Integrity Commissioner receives a disclosure of wrongdoing under section 116, the Commissioner shall refuse to deal with the disclosure if one or more of the following circumstances apply:. 1. The subject matter of the disclosure is being dealt with by another person or body as a matter of law enforcement or in accordance with a procedure established under this or any other Act. 2. The subject matter of the disclosure is an employment or labour relations matter that could be dealt with through a dispute resolution mechanism, including a grievance procedure, established under this or any other Act, under a collective agreement or under an agreement of another kind. 3. The subject matter of the disclosure is a matter that could be dealt with under Part V of the Police Services Act. 4. The subject matter of the disclosure is the subject of, i. a decision made in the exercise of an adjudicative function by a court or other tribunal under this or any other Act, or ii. deliberations that have led or may lead to a decision made in the exercise of an adjudicative function by a court or other tribunal under this or any other Act. 5. The subject matter of the disclosure is related to the exercise of discretion by a prosecutor in relation to the prosecution of an offence. 6. The subject matter of the disclosure is not sufficiently important or the disclosure is frivolous, vexatious or made in bad faith. 7. There has been a substantial delay between the disclosure and the incidents that are the subject matter of the disclosure and because of the delay the proceeding would serve no useful purpose. 8. The subject matter of the disclosure relates solely to a public policy decision. 9. There is a valid reason, other than a circumstance described in paragraphs 1 to 8, for not proceeding with the disclosure. 2006, c. 35, Sched. A, s (1) This section applies where the Integrity Commissioner receives a disclosure of wrongdoing under section 116 and does not refuse to deal with the disclosure under section , c. 35, Sched. A, s. 118 (1).
15 (2) The Integrity Commissioner shall determine, from among the persons mentioned in subsection (3), the person who, in the opinion of the Commissioner, is in the best position to investigate the disclosure and shall, (a) provide the person with a written summary of the disclosure and any other information that the Commissioner has received in relation to the matter that the Commissioner considers may assist the person in dealing with the matter; (b) direct the person to cause an investigation to be conducted into the subject matter of the disclosure; and (c) direct the person to report the results of the investigation to the Commissioner. 2006, c. 35, Sched. A, s. 118 (2). Report after referral 120. (1) A report from a person who has received a referral under subsection 118 (2) shall be in writing and shall include: 1. A summary of the subject matter of the disclosure. 2. A description of the steps taken in the investigation conducted by the person to whom the referral is made. 3. A summary of the evidence obtained during the investigation. 4. A statement of the findings resulting from the investigation of the disclosure, including a statement about any wrongdoing that was discovered. 5. A description of any corrective action that has been taken or that is proposed to be taken as a result of the investigation. 2006, c. 35, Sched. A, s. 120 (1). No reprisals 139. (1) No person shall take a reprisal against a public servant because he or she has, (a) sought advice about making a disclosure about wrongdoing in accordance with this Part; (b) made a disclosure about wrongdoing in accordance with this Part; (c) co-operated in an investigation or other process related to a disclosure of wrongdoing made in accordance with this Part; (d) acted in compliance with this Part; or (e) sought enforcement of this Part. 2006, c. 35, Sched. A, s. 139 (1). (2) For the purposes of subsection (1), a reprisal is any measure taken against a public servant that adversely affects his or her employment or appointment and includes but is not limited to, (a) ending or threatening to end a public servant s employment or appointment; (b) disciplining or suspending or threatening to discipline or suspend a public servant;
16 (c) imposing or threatening to impose a penalty related to the employment or appointment of a public servant; (d) intimidating or coercing a public servant in relation to his or her employment or appointment. 2006, c. 35, Sched. A, s. 139 (2). Complaint about reprisal 140. (1) A public servant described in subsection (2), (3) or (4) may complain under this section that he or she has suffered a reprisal prohibited by section , c. 35, Sched. A, s. 140 (1). Public servant not subject to collective agreement (3) A public servant employed under Part III who is not subject to the terms and conditions of a collective agreement may file the complaint with the Public Service Grievance Board. 2009, c. 33, Sched. 17, s. 10 (15). Order (8) If the Public Service Grievance Board, the Ontario Labour Relations Board or the Grievance Settlement Board determines, on the completion of an inquiry into a complaint filed under subsection (2), (3) or (4), that a reprisal has been taken in contravention of subsection 139 (1), the Board may make an order that it considers just and reasonable in the circumstances, directing the relevant ministry or public body or a person acting on behalf of the ministry or public body to do or refrain from doing anything in relation to the contravention. 2006, c. 35, Sched. A, s. 140 (8). Same (9) Without limiting the generality of subsection (8), an order under that subsection may direct that the ministry or public body, or a person acting on behalf of the ministry or public body, do one or more of the following: 1. Cease doing an act or acts complained of under subsection (1). 2. Take steps to rectify harm related to a complaint under subsection (1). 3. Reinstate the employment of a public servant whose employment was terminated. 4. Compensate the public servant for loss of any remuneration, including benefits. 2006, c. 35, Sched. A, s. 140 (9). (10) Without limiting the generality of subsection (8), where the board is of the view that continuation of the employment relationship is inappropriate, the board may direct the ministry or public body, or person acting on behalf of the ministry or public body to terminate the public servant s employment and provide compensation in lieu of reasonable notice of the termination. 2006, c. 35, Sched. A, s. 140 (10). (11) A board may not make an order under subsection (8) for punitive damages or for costs. 2006, c. 35, Sched. A, s. 140 (11). (12) Where a board has made a finding under subsection (8) that a reprisal has been taken, the board shall inform the Integrity Commissioner of the finding. 2006, c. 35, Sched. A, s. 140 (12).
17 Onus of proof (13) On an inquiry into a complaint filed with the Public Service Grievance Board, the Ontario Labour Relations Board or the Grievance Settlement Board under this section, the burden of proof that an employer or a person acting on behalf of an employer did not act contrary to subsection 139 (1) lies on the employer or the person acting on behalf of the employer. 2006, c. 35, Sched. A, s. 140 (13). Excerpts from Regulation 378/07 under The Public Service of Ontario Act: 4. (1) Subject to subsection (2), a public servant who is aggrieved about a working condition or about a term of his or her employment may file a complaint about the working condition or the term of employment with the Public Service Grievance Board, (a) if the public servant is eligible under sections 5 and 7 to file such a complaint; (b) if the public servant gives notice in accordance with section 8 of his or her proposal to file the complaint; and (c) if the public servant complies with the filing requirements set out in section 10. (2) The following matters cannot be the subject of a complaint about a working condition or about a term of employment: 1. The term or duration of the public servant's appointment to employment by the Crown. 2. The assignment of the public servant to a particular class of position. 3. A dismissal without cause under subsection 38 (1) of the Act or a matter relating to such a dismissal. 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. Eligibility generally 5. (1)Subject to subsections (2) and (3), a public servant or other person is eligible to file a complaint if he or she was appointed by the Public Service Commission under subsection 32 (1) or (2) of the Act to employment by the Crown. O. Reg. 378/07, s. 5 (1). (2) If any of the following circumstances existed at the material time, a public servant or other person is not eligible to file a complaint: 1. He or she was a member of a bargaining unit represented by a bargaining agent under the Crown Employees
18 Collective Bargaining Act, 1993 or under the Ontario Provincial Police Collective Bargaining Act, He or she was represented by the Ontario Crown Attorneys Association or the Association of Law Officers of the Crown under an agreement between the Crown and one or both of those Associations. 3. He or she was employed in a position that was classified under subsection 33 (1) of the Act as a term classified position. 4. He or she was employed for a fixed term, i. on a non-recurring project, ii. in a professional or other special capacity, or iii. on a temporary work assignment arranged by the Public Service Commission in accordance with a program for providing temporary help. 5. He or she was employed for a fixed term for fewer than 14 hours per week, employed for a fixed term for fewer than nine full days in four consecutive weeks or employed for a fixed term on an irregular or on-call basis. 6. He or she was employed for a fixed term during his or her regular school, college or university vacation period or was employed for a fixed term under a co-operative educational training program. O. Reg. 378/07, s. 5 (2). (3) Subsections (1) and (2) do not affect the right of a public servant or other person to file a complaint under Part V of the Act (Political Activity) or a complaint under Part VI of the Act (Disclosing and Investigating Wrongdoing). O. Reg. 378/07, s. 5 (3). Restrictions, complaint about a working condition or a term of employment 7. (1) A public servant is eligible to file a complaint about a working condition or a term of employment only if he or she had been employed continuously for at least six months before the deadline for giving notice in accordance with section 8 of his or her proposal to file the complaint. O. Reg. 378/07, s. 7 (1). Filing a Complaint Notice of proposal to file a complaint 8. (1) A person who proposes to file a complaint shall give notice of the proposal to the following person or entity: 1. A complainant who, at the material time, worked in a ministry shall give the notice to his or her deputy minister. 2. A complainant who, at the material time, worked in a Commission public body shall give the notice to the chair of the Public Service Commission. O. Reg. 378/07, s. 8 (1).
19 (2) Subsection (1) does not apply with respect to a complaint under Part V of the Act (Political Activity) or a complaint under Part VI of the Act (Disclosing and Investigating Wrongdoing). O. Reg. 378/07, s. 8 (2). (3) The notice must set out the reasons for the complaint. O. Reg. 378/07, s. 8 (3). (4) The notice must be given within the following period: 1. For a complaint about dismissal for cause, within 14 days after the complainant receives notice of the dismissal. 2. For a complaint about a disciplinary measure, within 14 days after the complainant receives notice of the imposition of the disciplinary measure. 3. For a complaint about a working condition or a term of employment, within 14 days after the complainant becomes aware of the working condition or term of employment giving rise to the complaint. O. Reg. 378/07, s. 8 (4). Period for dispute resolution 9. (1) A complainant is not entitled to file a complaint with the Public Service Grievance Board until expiry of the period provided under this section for dispute resolution. O. Reg. 378/07, s. 9 (1). (2) Subsection (1) does not affect the right of a public servant or other person to file a complaint under Part V of the Act (Political Activity) or a complaint under Part VI of the Act (Disclosing and Investigating Wrongdoing). O. Reg. 378/07, s. 9 (2). (3) If the complainant was required to give a deputy minister notice of the proposal to make the complaint, and if the deputy minister or his or her delegate meets with the complainant within 30 days after the deputy minister receives the notice, the period provided for dispute resolution expires on the earlier of, (a) the day that is 30 days after the meeting; or (b) the day on which the deputy minister gives written notice to the complainant of his or her decision about the proposed complaint. O. Reg. 378/07, s. 9 (3). (4) If the complainant was required to give the chair of the Public Service Commission notice of the proposal to make the complaint, and if the chair or his or her delegate meets with the complainant within 30 days after the chair receives the notice, the period provided for dispute resolution expires on the earlier of, (a) the day that is 30 days after the meeting; or (b) the day on which the chair gives written notice to the complainant of his or her decision about the proposed complaint. O. Reg. 378/07, s. 9 (4).
20 (5) If the deputy minister or chair of the Public Service Commission, as the case may be, or his or her delegate does not meet with the complainant within 30 days after receiving the notice, the period provided for dispute resolution expires 30 days after the notice was given to the deputy minister or chair. O. Reg. 378/07, s. 9 (5). Filing a complaint 10. (1) Within 14 days after the expiry of the period, if any, provided for dispute resolution under section 9, the complainant may file the complaint with the Public Service Grievance Board by delivering it to the chair of the Board. O. Reg. 378/07, s. 10 (1). (2) The complaint must set out the reasons for the complaint and must include the notice of the proposal, if any, to make the complaint and such other information and documents as the Board may specify. O. Reg. 378/07, s. 10 (2). Excerpt from Regulation 977, under the Public Service Act, now superseded 54. The Board or a Classification Rating committee may, of its own motion, (a) abridge the procedure set out in this Part and hear the grievance at any time under section 48: or (b) extend the time limits specified in this Part, RO 1980, Reg, 881, s. 61. Excerpt from the Board s rules. 3(1) An application to the Board shall be delivered to the Board in Form 1 and must include a copy of the complaint that was filed with the deputy minister.
THE PUBLIC INTEREST DISCLOSURE (WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION) ACT
THE PUBLIC INTEREST DISCLOSURE (WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION) ACT Provision PART 1 PURPOSE AND DEFINITIONS Purpose of this Act 1 The purpose of this Act is (a) to facilitate the disclosure and investigation
More informationWhistleblower Protection
Whistleblower Protection Background The Board and staff are committed to promoting ethical and accountable conduct, and recognize the importance of working to deter and detect wrongdoing within the operations
More informationC-451 Workplace Psychological Harassment Prevention Act
Proposed Canadian National Law C-451 Workplace Psychological Harassment Prevention Act Second Session, Thirty-seventh Parliament, 51-52 Elizabeth II, 2002-2003 An Act to prevent psychological harassment
More informationIN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION. Under THE PUBLIC SERVICE ACT. Before THE PUBLIC SERVICE GRIEVANCE BOARD. A. Arkelian Grievor.
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
More informationPUBLIC INTEREST DISCLOSURE (WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION) ACT
Province of Alberta Statutes of Alberta, Current as of June 7, 2017 Office Consolidation Published by Alberta Queen s Printer Alberta Queen s Printer Suite 700, Park Plaza 10611-98 Avenue Edmonton, AB
More informationBill 41 (2013, chapter 25) An Act to amend the Public Service Act mainly with respect to staffing
FIRST SESSION FORTIETH LEGISLATURE Bill 41 (2013, chapter 25) An Act to amend the Public Service Act mainly with respect to staffing Introduced 14 May 2013 Passed in principle 26 September 2013 Passed
More informationWhistleblower Protection Act 10 of 2017 (GG 6450) ACT
(GG 6450) This Act has been passed by Parliament, but it has not yet been brought into force. It will come into force on a date set by the Minister in the Government Gazette. ACT To provide for the establishment
More informationOMBUDSMAN BILL, 2017
Arrangement of Sections Section PART I - PRELIMINARY 3 1. Short title...3 2. Interpretation...3 3. Application of Act...4 PART II OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN 5 ESTABLISHMENT AND FUNCTIONS OF OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN
More informationIN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION. Under THE PUBLIC SERVICE ACT. Before THE PUBLIC SERVICE GRIEVANCE BOARD. Lussier-Faouaz. - and -
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
More informationBERMUDA POLICE COMPLAINTS AUTHORITY ACT : 29
QUO FA T A F U E R N T BERMUDA POLICE COMPLAINTS AUTHORITY ACT 1998 1998 : 29 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Short title Interpretation Act
More informationNova Scotia House of Assembly Policy on the Prevention and Resolution of Harassment in the Workplace (Policy).
Nova Scotia House of Assembly Policy on the Prevention and Resolution of Harassment in the Workplace (Policy). Approved by the Nova Scotia House of Assembly on May 19, 2016. Effective date May 20, 2016.
More informationWhistleblower Protection 1 LAWS OF MALAYSIA. Act 711 WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION ACT 2010
Whistleblower Protection 1 LAWS OF MALAYSIA Act 711 WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION ACT 2010 2 Laws of Malaysia ACT 711 Date of Royal Assent...... 2 June 2010 Date of publication in the Gazette......... 10 June
More informationPOLICE COMPLAINTS AUTHORITY ACT 1998 BERMUDA 1998 : 29 POLICE COMPLAINTS AUTHORITY ACT 1998
BERMUDA 1998 : 29 POLICE COMPLAINTS AUTHORITY ACT 1998 [Date of Assent 13 July 1998] [Operative Date 5 October 1998] ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS 1 Short title 2 Interpretation 3 Act to bind Crown 4 Police
More informationThe Municipality of Chatham-Kent Code of Conduct for Members of Council
The Municipality of Chatham-Kent Code of Conduct for Members of Council 1. Preamble The Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25, at section 223.2, authorizes a municipality to establish a code of conduct
More informationIBSA Harassment Policy
IBSA Harassment Policy 1. Title This policy is referred to as the IBSA Harassment Policy. 2. Statements Of Purpose 2.1. This policy is passed by the IBSA Executive Board pursuant to sections 2.1, 2.2.4
More informationPOLICY MANUAL PART ONE INTRODUCTION AND INTERPRETATION OF POLICY. The interpretation of the Code of Conduct will be at the discretion of the Council.
POLICY MANUAL Legal References: Municipal Government Act Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act Local Authorities Election Act Cross References: Procedural Bylaw 3001 Policy department: Council
More informationAPRIL 2017 RECOGNITION AND PREVENTION OF DISCRIMINATION, HARASSMENT & VIOLENCE POLICY
APRIL 2017 RECOGNITION AND PREVENTION OF DISCRIMINATION, HARASSMENT & VIOLENCE POLICY The Royal Canadian Golf Association, operating as ( ), is committed to providing a sport and work environment that
More informationBERMUDA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION REGULATIONS 2001 BR 81 / 2001
QUO FA T A F U E R N T BERMUDA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION REGULATIONS 2001 BR 81 / 2001 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 1A 2 3 4 5 5A 6 6A 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Citation and commencement Purpose Interpretation
More informationBERMUDA 2004 : 32 OMBUDSMAN ACT 2004
BERMUDA 2004 : 32 OMBUDSMAN ACT 2004 Date of Assent: 17 December 2004 Operative Date: 1 May 2005 1 Short title 2 Interpretation 3 Application of the Act 4 Office of Ombudsman 5 Functions and jurisdiction
More informationTown of Kirkland Lake Whistleblower Policy Complaint Investigation Form
Town of Kirkland Lake Whistleblower Policy Complaint Investigation Form Notes: Complaint must be received within 180 days of infraction. Give as much detail as possible: Who, What, Where, When, Why, How.
More informationAccountability Report Card Summary 2015 New Jersey
Accountability Report Card Summary 2015 New Jersey New Jersey has an uneven state whistleblower law: Scoring 63 out of a possible 100 points; and Ranking 14 th out of 51 (50 states and the District of
More informationThe Ombudsman Act, 2012
1 OMBUDSMAN, 2012 c. O-3.2 The Ombudsman Act, 2012 being Chapter O-3.2* of The Statutes of Saskatchewan, 2012 (effective September 1, 2012), as amended by the Statutes of Saskatchewan, 2014, c.e-13.1;
More information1.2. This procedure will be reviewed and updated annually.
College Procedure PROCEDURE TYPE: Administrative PROCEDURE TITLE: Harassment, Workplace Sexual Harassment, and Discrimination PROCEDURE NO.: ADMIN-202.1 RESPONSIBILITY: Chief Administrative Officer APPROVED
More information2ND SESSION, 41ST LEGISLATURE, ONTARIO 67 ELIZABETH II, Bill 203. An Act respecting transparency of pay in employment
2ND SESSION, 41ST LEGISLATURE, ONTARIO 67 ELIZABETH II, 2018 Bill 203 An Act respecting transparency of pay in employment The Hon. K. Flynn Minister of Labour Government Bill 1st Reading March 6, 2018
More informationOntario Swimming Coaches Committee Disciplinary and Complaints Procedures
Ontario Swimming Coaches Committee Disciplinary and Complaints Procedures Purpose 1. Membership as a Swim Ontario Coach brings with it many benefits and privileges. At the same time, Swim Ontario Member
More information3RD SESSION, 41ST LEGISLATURE, ONTARIO 67 ELIZABETH II, Bill 3. An Act respecting transparency of pay in employment
3RD SESSION, 41ST LEGISLATURE, ONTARIO 67 ELIZABETH II, 2018 Bill 3 An Act respecting transparency of pay in employment The Hon. K. Flynn Minister of Labour Government Bill 1st Reading March 20, 2018 2nd
More informationWeb Copy. The University Tribunal. Rules of Practice and Procedure. Effective April 19, To request an official copy of these Rules, contact:
The University Tribunal Rules of Practice and Procedure Effective April 19, 2012 To request an official copy of these Rules, contact: The Office of the Governing Council Room 106, Simcoe Hall 27 King s
More informationThe Advocate for Children and Youth Act
1 The Advocate for Children and Youth Act being Chapter A-5.4* of the Statutes of Saskatchewan, 2012 (effective September 1, 2012), as amended by the Statutes of Saskatchewan, 2014, c.e-13.1; 2015, c.16;
More informationPLEASE NOTE Legislative Counsel Office not Table of Public Acts
c t LABOUR ACT PLEASE NOTE This document, prepared by the Legislative Counsel Office, is an office consolidation of this Act, current to August 20, 2016. It is intended for information and reference purposes
More informationTEACHERS ACT [SBC 2011] Chapter 19. Contents PART 1 - DEFINITIONS
[SBC 2011] Chapter 19 Contents 1 Definitions PART 1 - DEFINITIONS PART 2 COMMISSIONER AND DIRECTOR OF CERTIFICATION 2 Appointment of commissioner 3 Commissioner s power to delegate 4 Recommendations about
More informationRevised OBJECTS AND REASONS. This Bill would (a)
Revised 2017-10-18 OBJECTS AND REASONS This Bill would (d) make provision for the protection of employees in both the public sector and private sector from sexual harassment at their workplace; provide
More informationTHE PUBLIC INTEREST DISCLOSURE (PROTECTION OF INFORMERS ) BILL 2002
Monday, January 13, 2003 THE PUBLIC INTEREST DISCLOSURE (PROTECTION OF INFORMERS ) BILL 2002 A Bill to encourage disclosure of information relating to the conduct of any public servant involving the commission
More informationDisciplinary & Dispute Resolution Procedures
Disciplinary & Dispute Resolution Procedures RCSA, PO Box 18028, Collins Street East, Victoria 8003 Australia T: +61 3 9663 0555 F: +61 3 9663 5099 E: ethics@rcsa.com.au www.rcsa.com.au ABN 41 078 60 6
More informationGUIDE TO OIPC PROCESSES (PIPA)
GUIDANCE DOCUMENT GUIDE TO OIPC PROCESSES (PIPA) UPDATED FEBRUARY 2018 Page 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION... 3 REFER BACK POLICY... 7 B. Making a Complaint... 7 C. Decline to Investigate Policy... 8
More informationStaff Report Human Resources
Staff Report Human Resources Report To: Committee of the Whole Meeting Date: January 8, 2018 Report Number: FAF.18.07 Subject: Protocol Policy for Complaints Related to Members of Council and Local Boards
More informationFive questions about blowing the whistle
Five questions about blowing the whistle Five questions about blowing the whistle THE OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC SECTOR INTEGRITY COMMISSIONER OF CANADA is an independent organization that handles disclosures
More informationTRADE UNION. The Trade Union Act. Repealed by Chapter S-15.1 of the Statutes of Saskatchewan, 2013 (effective April 29, 2014)
1 TRADE UNION c. T-17 The Trade Union Act Repealed by Chapter S-15.1 of the Statutes of Saskatchewan, 2013 (effective April 29, 2014) Formerly Chapter T-17 of The Revised Statutes of Saskatchewan, 1978
More informationAccountability Report Card Summary 2018 Nevada
Accountability Report Card Summary 2018 Nevada Nevada has a protective state whistleblower law: Scoring 75 out of a possible 100 points. Ranking 3 rd out of 51 (50 states and the District of Columbia).
More informationFair Play Policy and Procedures
1 Fair Play Policy and Procedures Issued: February 1998 1 st Revision: September 1998 2 nd Revision: November 1999 3 rd Revision: August 2006 Approved by the Board of Directors Basketball Ontario August
More informationWHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION BILL
REPUBLIC OF NAMIBIA NATIONAL ASSEMBLY WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION BILL (As read a First Time) (Introduced by the Minister of Justice) [B. 1-2017) 2 BILL To provide for the establishment of a Whistleblower
More informationTrade Disputes Act Ch. 48:02
ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS SECTION VOLUME: X TRADE DISPUTES CHAPTER: 48:02 PART I Preliminary 1. Short title 2. Interpretation PART II Establishment of panel and procedure for settlement of trade disputes
More informationCrimes (Sentencing Legislation) Amendment (Intensive Correction Orders) Act 2010 No 48
New South Wales Crimes (Sentencing Legislation) Amendment (Intensive Correction Orders) Contents Page 1 Name of Act 2 2 Commencement 2 Schedule 1 Amendment of Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No
More informationBill 107 (2018, chapter 1)
FIRST SESSION FORTY-FIRST LEGISLATURE Bill 107 (2018, chapter 1) An Act to increase the jurisdiction and independence of the Anti-Corruption Commissioner and the Bureau des enquêtes indépendantes and expand
More informationBill 47, The Making Ontario Open for Business Act, 2018 What does it do to Labour & Employment Laws in Ontario? BACKGROUND
Bill 47, The Making Ontario Open for Business Act, 2018 What does it do to Labour & Employment Laws in Ontario? BACKGROUND In 2015, Ontario s Minister of Labour appointed C. Michael Mitchell and John C.
More informationWHISTLEBLOWER POLICY
AUTHORIZATION: Board of Governors Page 1 of 7 1.0 Purpose North York General Hospital (NYGH) promotes and supports a culture of transparency, accountability, safety and ethical standards. Accordingly,
More informationPARAMEDICS. The Paramedics Act. being
1 PARAMEDICS c. P-0.1 The Paramedics Act being Chapter P-0.1* of The Statutes of Saskatchewan, 2007 (effective September 1, 2008; except section 54 effective April 1, 2007) as amended by the Statutes of
More informationINFORMATION BULLETIN
INFORMATION BULLETIN #18 THE DUTY OF FAIR REPRESENTATION I. INTRODUCTION When a union becomes the exclusive bargaining agent for a unit of employees, it normally negotiates a collective agreement with
More informationSocial Workers Registration Legislation Bill
Social Workers Registration Legislation Bill Government Bill Explanatory note General policy statement This Bill is an omnibus Bill introduced under Standing Order 263. That Standing Order states that
More informationDiscrimination and Harassment Policy
Discrimination and Harassment Policy Category: Human Resources Approval: Board of Governors Responsibility: Human Rights Advisor Date: December 2, 2016 Part I. Discrimination & Harassment Policy Table
More informationOrder F Ministry of Justice. Hamish Flanagan Adjudicator. March 18, 2015
Order F15-12 Ministry of Justice Hamish Flanagan Adjudicator March 18, 2015 CanLII Cite: 2015 BCIPC 12 Quicklaw Cite: [2015] B.C.I.P.C.D. No. 12 Summary: The applicant requested records from the Ministry
More informationPublic Complaints About Police
Public Complaints About Police Agenda Background Overview of Complaints Process Investigations OIPRD Powers Police Services Boards CSR and Mediation Questions Office of the Independent Police Review
More information1 Introduction. 2 Purpose and scope
Contents: Page 1 Introduction 3 2 Purpose and scope 3 3 Matters outside the scope of the procedure 4 4 Principles 4 5 Informal discussion with the Headteacher 6 6 Formal process for lesser misconduct 6
More informationPROTECTION FOR PERSONS IN CARE ACT
Province of Alberta Statutes of Alberta, Current as of February 20, 2015 Office Consolidation Published by Alberta Queen s Printer Queen s Printer Bookstore Suite 700, Park Plaza 10611-98 Avenue Edmonton,
More informationCHAPTER Law Enforcement Officers' Bill of Rights
CHAPTER 42-28.6 Law Enforcement Officers' Bill of Rights 42-28.6-1 Definitions Payment of legal fees. As used in this chapter, the following words have the meanings indicated: (1) "Law enforcement officer"
More informationIN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION. Under THE PUBLIC SERVICE ACT. Before THE PUBLIC SERVICE GRIEVANCE BOARD
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
More informationB I L L. No. 108 An Act respecting the Athletics Commission and Professional Contests or Exhibitions TABLE OF CONTENTS ATHLETICS COMMISSION 1
1 B I L L No. 108 An Act respecting the Athletics Commission and Professional Contests or Exhibitions TABLE OF CONTENTS PART I Preliminary Matters 1 Short title 2 Interpretation PART II Commission 3 Commission
More informationPLEASE NOTE. For more information concerning the history of this Act, please see the Table of Public Acts.
PLEASE NOTE This document, prepared by the Legislative Counsel Office, is an office consolidation of this Act, current to December 2, 2015. It is intended for information and reference purposes only. This
More informationSocial Workers Act CHAPTER 12 OF THE ACTS OF as amended by. 2001, c. 19; 2005, c. 60; 2012, c. 48, s. 40; 2015, c. 52
Social Workers Act CHAPTER 12 OF THE ACTS OF 1993 as amended by 2001, c. 19; 2005, c. 60; 2012, c. 48, s. 40; 2015, c. 52 2016 Her Majesty the Queen in right of the Province of Nova Scotia Published by
More informationCanada: Canadian Human Rights Act
Cornell University ILR School DigitalCommons@ILR GLADNET Collection Gladnet July 1996 Canada: Canadian Human Rights Act Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/gladnetcollect
More informationOrder F17-40 BRITISH COLUMBIA TRANSIT CORPORATION. Celia Francis Adjudicator. September 25, 2017
Order F17-40 BRITISH COLUMBIA TRANSIT CORPORATION Celia Francis Adjudicator September 25, 2017 CanLII Cite: 2017 BCIPC 44 Quicklaw Cite: [2017] B.C.I.P.C.D. No. 44 Summary: A BC Transit driver requested
More informationPREVIOUS CHAPTER 10:18 OMBUDSMAN ACT
TITLE 10 TITLE 10 PREVIOUS CHAPTER Chapter 10:18 OMBUDSMAN ACT Acts 16/1982, 24/1985, 8/1988, 1/1989, 3/1994, 22/2001. ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS PART I PRELIMINARY Section 1. Short title. 2. Interpretation.
More informationPublic Accountants Act
Public Accountants Act CHAPTER 369 OF THE REVISED STATUTES, 1989 as amended by 1994, c. 30; 2015, c. 49, ss. 1-10, 11 (except insofar as it enacts ss. 14B(2), 14C, 14D(1)(f)), 12-14 2016 Her Majesty the
More informationCITY OF HAMILTON BY-LAW NO Council Code of Conduct:
CITY OF HAMILTON BY-LAW NO. 16-290 Council Code of Conduct Authority: Item 6, General Issues Committee 16-024 (LS16022) CM: October 26, 2016 Bill No. 290 WHEREAS sections 8, 9 and 10 of the Municipal Act,
More informationLABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT BILL, [Words in bold type indicate omissions from existing enactments]
[Words in bold type indicate omissions from existing enactments] Words underlined indicate insertions in existing enactments BE IT ENACTED by the Parliament of the Republic of South Africa, as follows:
More informationDisciplinary procedure
Disciplinary procedure This procedure sets out the process for dealing with disciplinary matters for all employees working for Consilium Academies. The procedure was approved by the Trust Board of Directors
More informationREPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE GOVERNMENT GAZETTE ACTS SUPPLEMENT. Published by Authority NO. 23] FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 4 [2016 EMPLOYMENT CLAIMS ACT 2016
REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE GOVERNMENT GAZETTE ACTS SUPPLEMENT Published by Authority NO. 23] FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 4 [2016 First published in the Government Gazette, Electronic Edition, on 1st November 2016 at 5:00
More informationDISCIPLINARY PROCEDURE FOR TEACHERS INCLUDING PRINCIPALS AND VICE-PRINCIPALS IN GRANT-AIDED SCHOOLS WITH FULLY DELEGATED BUDGETS
DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURE FOR TEACHERS INCLUDING PRINCIPALS AND VICE-PRINCIPALS IN GRANT-AIDED SCHOOLS WITH FULLY DELEGATED BUDGETS 1. PURPOSE AND PRINCIPLES 1.1 This procedure has been drawn up to provide
More information(1 August 2014 to date) EMPLOYMENT EQUITY ACT 55 OF (Gazette No , Notice No dated 19 October 1998.
(1 August 2014 to date) [This is the current version and applies as from 1 August 2014, i.e. the date of commencement of the Employment Equity Amendment Act 47 of 2013 to date] EMPLOYMENT EQUITY ACT 55
More informationDISCIPLINARY PROCEDURE
DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURE 1 INTRODUCTION The University of Aberdeen expects a professional and consistent standard of conduct and performance from all members of staff. This procedure aims to encourage you
More informationHuman Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Act 1986
Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Act 1986 Act No. 126 of 1986 This Act was prepared on 14 April 2004 Prepared by the Office of Legislative
More informationPublic Service Act 2004
Public Service Act 2004 SAMOA PUBLIC SERVICE ACT 2004 Arrangement of Provisions PART 1 PRELIMINARY 1. Short title and commencement 2. Objects 3. Interpretation 4. Employer powers exercised on behalf of
More informationCODES OF GOOD PRACTICE Pursuant to section 15(1)(a) of the Public Service Act , I, PAKALITHA BETHUEL MOSISILI
CODES OF GOOD PRACTICE 2005 Pursuant to section 15(1) of the Public Service Act 2005 1, I, PAKALITHA BETHUEL MOSISILI Prime Minister of Lesotho and Minister responsible for public service, make the following
More informationStatutory Instrument 2004 No. 752
Statutory Instrument 2004 No. 752 The Employment Act 2002 (Dispute Resolution) Regulations 2004 Crown Copyright 2004 Statutory Instruments printed from this website are printed under the superintendence
More informationAccountability Report Card Summary 2018 Washington
Accountability Report Card Summary 2018 Washington Washington has an uneven state whistleblower law: Scoring 64 out of a possible 100; Ranking 15 th out of 51 (50 states and the District of Columbia).
More information2016 No. 41 POLICE. The Police (Conduct) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2016
S T A T U T O R Y R U L E S O F N O R T H E R N I R E L A N D 2016 No. 41 POLICE The Police (Conduct) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2016 Made - - - - 17th February 2016 Coming into operation - 1st June
More informationThe Registered Music Teachers Act, 2002
Consolidated to August 31, 2010 1 REGISTERED MUSIC TEACHERS, 2002 c. R-11.1 The Registered Music Teachers Act, 2002 being Chapter R-11.1 of the Statutes of Saskatchewan, 2002 (effective August 1, 2004);
More informationThe Medical Radiation Technologists Act, 2006
1 MEDICAL RADIATION TECHNOLOGISTS c. M-10.3 The Medical Radiation Technologists Act, 2006 being Chapter M-10.3 of the Statutes of Saskatchewan, 2006 (effective May 30, 2011) as amended by the the Statutes
More information12/8/2017 Labour Relations Act, 1995, S.O. 1995, c. 1, Sched. A
HOME PAGE / LAWS / LABOUR RELATIONS ACT, 1995, S.O. 1995, C. 1, SCHED. A Français Labour Relations Act, 1995 S.O. 1995, CHAPTER 1 SCHEDULE A Consolidation Period: From November 27, 2017 to the e-laws currency
More informationRESPECTFUL WORKPLACE AND HARASSMENT PREVENTION
RESPECTFUL WORKPLACE AND HARASSMENT PREVENTION POLICY NUMBER BRD 17-0 APPROVAL DATE MAY 28, 2009 PREVIOUS AMENDMENT NEW REVIEW DATE MAY 28, 2014 AUTHORITY PRIMARY CONTACT BOARD OF GOVERNORS GENERAL COUNSEL
More informationDISTRIBUTED BY VERITAS TRUST
DISTRIBUTED BY VERITAS TRUST Tel: [263] [4] 794478 Fax & Messages [263] [4] 793592 E-mail: veritas@mango.zw VERITAS MAKES EVERY EFFORT TO ENSURE THE PROVISION OF RELIABLE INFORMATION, BUT CANNOT TAKE LEGAL
More informationBERMUDA LABOUR RELATIONS ACT : 15
QUO FA T A F U E R N T BERMUDA LABOUR RELATIONS ACT 1975 1975 : 15 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 2 3 4 5 5A 5B 5C 5D 5E 5F 5G 5H 5I 5J 5K 5L 5M 5N 5O 5P Interpretation Application of Act PART I PART II ARBITRATION,
More informationEMPLOYMENT EQUITY ACT NO. 55 OF 1998
EMPLOYMENT EQUITY ACT NO. 55 OF 1998 [ASSENTED TO 12 OCTOBER, 1998] [DATE OF COMMENCEMENT: 1 DECEMBER, 1999] (Unless otherwise indicated) (English text signed by the President) This Act has been updated
More informationPART I PELIMINARY PROVISIONS. PART II ADMINISTRA non
PART I PELIMINARY PROVISIONS 1. Short title and commencement. 2. Application. 3. Interpretation. PART II ADMINISTRA non 4. Judiciary Service. 5. Judicial Scheme. 6. Divisions and Units of the Service.
More information1.4 This code does not attempt to replace the law. The University therefore reserves the right to refer some matters to the police (see section 4).
Code of Discipline for Students and Disciplinary Procedures 1. Overview 1.1 The University exists primarily to provide higher education, to carry out research and to provide the facilities and resources
More informationPMI MEMBER ETHICAL STANDARDS MEMBER ETHICS CASE PROCEDURES
PMI MEMBER ETHICAL STANDARDS MEMBER ETHICS CASE PROCEDURES The following ethics case procedures are the only rules for processing possible violations of the ethical standards promulgated by the Project
More informationA Guide to Ontario Legislation Covering the Release of Students
A Guide to Ontario Legislation Covering the Release of Students Personal Information Revised: June 2011 Ann Cavoukian, Ph.D. Information and Privacy Commissioner, Ontario, Canada Commissioner, Ontario,
More informationBill 15. Anti-Corruption Act. Introduction. Introduced by Mr. Robert Dutil Minister of Public Security
SECOND SESSION THIRTY-NINTH LEGISLATURE Bill 15 Anti-Corruption Act Introduction Introduced by Mr. Robert Dutil Minister of Public Security Québec Official Publisher 2011 1 EXPLANATORY NOTES The purpose
More informationPROTECTION AGAINST FAMILY VIOLENCE ACT
Province of Alberta PROTECTION AGAINST FAMILY VIOLENCE ACT Revised Statutes of Alberta 2000 Current as of March 30, 2018 Office Consolidation Published by Alberta Queen s Printer Alberta Queen s Printer
More informationDISCIPLINARY PROCEDURE FOR TEACHERS, INCLUDING PRINCIPALS AND VICE-PRINCIPALS, IN GRANT AIDED SCHOOLS WITH FULLY DELEGATED BUDGETS
DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURE FOR TEACHERS, INCLUDING PRINCIPALS AND VICE-PRINCIPALS, IN GRANT AIDED SCHOOLS WITH FULLY DELEGATED BUDGETS 1. PURPOSE AND PRINCIPLES 1.1 The procedure is concerned with supporting
More informationThe Canadian Information Processing Society of Saskatchewan Act
CANADIAN INFORMATION 1 The Canadian Information Processing Society of Saskatchewan Act being Chapter C-0.2 of The Statutes of Saskatchewan, 2005 (effective June 24, 2005) as amended by the Statutes of
More informationTORONTO MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 140, LOBBYING. Chapter 140 LOBBYING. ARTICLE I General
Chapter 140 LOBBYING ARTICLE I General 140-1. Definitions. 140-2. Subsidiary corporation. 140-3. Restriction on application (persons and organizations). 140-4. Restriction on application (not-for-profit
More informationPrint THE NETHERLANDS. National Ombudsman Act
Print THE NETHERLANDS National Ombudsman Act Act of 4 February 1981 (Bulletin of Acts and Decrees 1981, 35), most recently amended by Act of Parliament of 12 May 1999 (Bulletin of Acts and Decrees 1999,
More informationSTUDENT DISCIPLINE PROCEDURE 2016
STUDENT DISCIPLINE PROCEDURE 2016 Office of General Counsel Building E11A/211 Macquarie University NSW 2109 Minor Amendments: 30 July 2018 updated definition of Serious Misconduct. 12 March 2018 updated
More informationAn Act to amend the Charter of the French language
FIRST SESSION THIRTY-SIXTH LEGISLATURE Bill 171 (2000, chapter 57) An Act to amend the Charter of the French language Introduced 15 November 2000 Passage in principle 1 December 2000 Passage 13 December
More informationCanada Industrial Relations Board: 10 Key Points
Canada Industrial Relations Board: 10 Key Points The Six-Minute Labour Lawyer 2010 The Law Society of Upper Canada Toronto, Ontario June 15, 2010 Graham J. Clarke Vice-Chairperson Canada Industrial Relations
More informationKERALA CIVIL SERVICES (CLASSIFICATION, CONTROL & APPEAL) RULES, 1960
1 KERALA CIVIL SERVICES (CLASSIFICATION, CONTROL & APPEAL) RULES, 1960 In exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, the Governor of Kerala hereby makes
More informationIMMIGRATION ADVISERS LICENSING ACT 2007
IMMIGRATION ADVISERS LICENSING ACT 2007 COMPLAINTS AND DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURES: PARTS 44 55 44. Complaints against immigration advisers (1) Any person may make a complaint to the Registrar concerning the
More informationWhistleblower Protection Policy
Responsible Officer: SVP - Chief Compliance & Audit Officer Responsible Office: EC - Ethics, Compliance & Audit Services Issuance Date: April 23, 2015 Effective Date: May 1, 2015 Last Review Date: March
More informationAGREEMENT. Between. BRANT COUNTY ROMAN CATHOLIC SEPARATE SCHOOL BOARD (hereinafter called the "Board") OF THE FIRST PART. And
AGREEMENT Between BRANT COUNTY ROMAN CATHOLIC SEPARATE SCHOOL BOARD (hereinafter called the "Board") OF THE FIRST PART And THE BRANT HALDIMAND NORFOLK OCCASIONAL TEACHER LOCAL OF THE ONTARIO ENGLISH CATHOLIC
More informationIN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION. Under THE PUBLIC SERVICE ACT. Before THE PUBLIC SERVICE GRIEVANCE BOARD. Tom Sawyer et al.
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
More information