FPSLREB Decisions

[1]    Before me are two complaints made under section 23 of the Public Service Staff Relations Act (the Act) and filed with the Public Service Staff Relations Board (the Board), on July 6, 2000, in the case of the complainant Micheline Rioux and on September 4, 2000, in the case of the complainant Simon Cloutier. Essentially, the complainants have alleged that they were subject to reprisals and discrimination because of their union activities, in violation of sections 8 to 10 of the Act. Their complaints are supported by a narrative description of various actions by representatives of the employer which, in the complainants' opinion, establish this violation.

[2]    On March 3, 2003, the complainants submitted "additional allegations" to the Board; on March 18, 2003, the Board informed counsel for the employer of this letter.

[3]    Around July 10, 2003, the complainants informed the Board that, if the opposing party objected to the submission of the "additional allegations", they would ask the Board to consider this letter as a new complaint and to hear it after hearing the present complaints. On July 14, 2003, the Board informed the employer of this request; it also informed the parties that any concerns would have to be raised when the hearing was resumed.

[4]    In their March 3, 2003 "additional allegations", the complainants submitted facts that [translation] "raise the issue of the harm I suffered because I made a complaint to the Board ". An 18-page document appended to the "additional allegations" provides details of events occurring over a period of time after the initial complaints were made to the Board.

[5]    A September 30, 2001 "request for intervention" sent to the Board by Ms Rioux was adduced in Board File No. 166-2-1140. In this document, this complainant makes a number of specific requests, including that the Board consider disciplinary action (a two-day and a five-day suspension without pay) at the upcoming hearing of the initial complaints. This 22-page document refers to various incidents occurring after this complainant made her initial complaint.

[6]    The action requested in this "request for intervention" was not included in the March 3, 2003 "additional allegations". The Board did not notify the employer of this request.

[7]    At the hearing on August 14, 2003, the complainants asked that the "additional allegations" and the "request for information" be considered as included in the initial complaints and be heard at the same time as the initial complaints, arguing that the events described in these documents establish that the employer's representatives continued to discriminate against them after they made their initial complaints.

[8]    Counsel for the employer objected to this request, arguing that, once a complaint had been made, new elements could not be added to it on the basis of subsequent incidents. He noted that any such incidents must be the subject of another complaint, and that the employer must be given an opportunity to evaluate and respond to this new complaint after making a serious analysis of the allegations and incidents referred to in it. He also argued that, by March 3, 2003, these incidents could not be considered as having been invoked in support of the complaint within a reasonable time after their occurrence. Even if the incidents referred to were similar to or the same as those referred to in the initial complaints, they are inadmissible because they were not the subject of a complaint in a timely manner.

[9]    The complainants, on the other hand, expressed apprehension that considering the "additional allegations" and the "request for information" as new complaints would harm them by creating further delays in obtaining a decision on these new elements.

Reasons for decision

[10]    The complainants' request that the allegations set out in their "additional allegations" and "request for information" form part of their files is not allowed.

[11]    Firstly, the hearing of the complaints has not been completed and requires a continuation that the parties estimate will last nine more days, in addition to the 15 hearing days already held. Including the additional allegations, set out in documents totalling 41 pages, will make already voluminous files a great deal more complicated and would considerably delay the decision on the present complaints. I consider that it is in the parties' best interest to render a decision as soon as possible on the complaints now being heard, since July 2000 in the case of Ms Rioux and since September 2000 in the case of Mr. Cloutier.

[12]    Secondly, the September 20, 2001 "request for information" sent to the Board by Ms Rioux must be sent to the employer so that the employer can read and, if necessary, respond to it.

[13]    Thirdly, the incidents described in the additional requests occurred after the present complaints were made, and would add new elements to the dispute in the two complaints now being heard. In these circumstances, I consider that the Board would exceed its jurisdiction in allowing the complainants' request simply to include in the present complaints additional allegations about incidents occurring after the present complaints were made. These allegations must be the subject of new complaints.

[14]    Lastly, according to the wording of the "additional allegations", the employees claim that the employer harmed them because they made a complaint to the Board. These allegations are different from those in the present complaints, which have to do with reprisals to which the complainants claim they were subjected so that they would not participate in union activities (by acting as a member of the union local executive or as a members' representative). Thus, including the "additional allegations" in the present complaints would fundamentally alter the nature of the initial complaints, and the Board should consider these allegations only as a separate complaint.

[15]    Accordingly, I ask the Board's employees to treat the "additional allegations" submitted on March 3, 2003, and the "request for information" submitted on September 30, 2001, as new complaints under section 23 of the Act. The Board will need to open a complaint file in the name of Ms Rioux, containing the "additional allegations" and the "request for information". A separate complaint file will need to be opened in the name of Mr. Cloutier, containing the "additional allegations". The Board will process these new complaints in accordance with the applicable administrative procedure and will notify the employer accordingly.

[16]    Concerning the dates on which these documents are deemed to be filed with the Board, March 3, 2003, shall be the date for the "additional allegations", and September 30, 2001, shall be the date for Ms Rioux's "request for information" .

[17]    As was made clear to the parties when this decision was announced to them at the hearing on August 14, 2003, they will have an opportunity to ask the Board, if they so wish, to link these new files to any other element they consider necessary or, for the purposes of the hearing, to link them to other files being heard.

[18]    Any arguments on either the substance of these new complaints or the issue of delays in making them must be heard by the Member whom the Board will designate to hear these new complaints.

Léo-Paul Guindon
Board Member

OTTAWA, September 9, 2003.

P.S.S.R.B. Translation