FPSLREB Decisions

Decision Information

Rakhra v. Treasury Board (Department of Human Resources Development)

Collection FPSLREB Decisions
Decision Rendered 2005-06-22
Citation 2005 PSLRB 61
File Number 166-02-33007, 166-02-35182
Before John J. Steeves
Decision Type Labour Relations
Subject Terms Reinstatement
Original Language English
Summary:

No summary has been written for this decision. Please refer to the full text.

Decision Content



Public Service 
Labour Relations Act

Coat of Arms - Armoiries
  • Date:  2005-06-22
  • Files:  166-02-33007
    166-02-35182
  • Citation:  2005 PSLRB 61

Before an adjudicator

BETWEEN

HARVINDER RAKHRA

Grievor

and

TREASURY BOARD

(Department of Human Resources Development)

Employer

Indexed as
Rakhra v. Treasury Board (Department of Human Resources Development)

In the matter of a grievance referred to adjudication pursuant to section 92 of the Public Service Staff Relations Act

REASONS FOR DECISION

Before: John Steeves, adjudicator

For the Grievor: Edith Bramwell, Public Service Alliance of Canada

For the Employer: John Jaworski, Counsel, Treasury Board of Canada

Heard at Toronto, Ontario
June 14, 2005.

Grievance referred to adjudication

[1]   This is a decision about the employer’s decision to suspend the grievor from work for the period from September 10, 2003, to June 4, 2004.

[2]   On April 1, 2005, the Public Service Labour Relations Act, enacted by section 2 of the Public Service Modernization Act, S.C. 2003, c. 22, was proclaimed in force.  Pursuant to section 61 of the Public Service Modernization Act, I continue to be seized with this reference to adjudication, which must be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of the Public Service Staff Relations Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. P‑35 (the “former Act”).

[3]   The grievor filed a grievance about her suspension and I eventually heard it on June 14, 2005.

Summary of the evidence

[4]   At the hearing, the employer advised that it would not be presenting any evidence.  Since the onus of proof is on the employer to prove that there was just cause for the discipline, I can only conclude that just cause has not been established in this case.

Reasons

[5]   The grievance is allowed.  The grievor will be reinstated for the period from September 10, 2003, to June 4, 2004, with all back pay and any other entitlements.  Her personnel record will reflect this decision.

[6]   The parties will discuss any further issues with regard to the grievor’s reinstatement.

[7]   I remain seized for a period of ninety days from the date of this decision to decide any matter arising from this decision.

[8]   For all of the above reasons, I make the following order:

[9]    The grievance is allowed.

June 22, 2005

John Steeves
adjudicator

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.