FPSLREB Decisions
Decision Information
The bargaining agent filed a section 23 complaint, alleging that the employer had interfered with the administration of the employee organization and had used threats and reprisals and abused its rights towards employees who were also members of the institutional emergency response teams -- the employer raised a preliminary objection, arguing that the complaint had named Treasury Board as the respondent rather than an individual, and that the complaint therefore had to be dismissed under section 8 of the Act -- in rendering its decision and partially allowing the complaint, the Public Service Staff Relations Board did not address the issue raised in the preliminary objection -- the respondent successfully sought judicial review -- the Court held that the Board should have addressed the issue and that had it done so, it would have had no choice but to reject the complaint -- the Court returned the complaint to the Board member who had rendered the initial decision - the Board renders second decision dismissing the complaint. Complaint dismissed.
Decision Content
Public Service
Labour Relations Act
- Date: 2006-01-10
- File: 161-2-1263
- Citation: 2006 PSLRB 1
Before the Public Service Labour Relations Board
BETWEEN
UNION OF CANADIAN CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS -
SYNDICAT DES AGENTS CORRECTIONNELS DU CANADA
(UCCO-SACC-CSN)
Complainant
and
TREASURY BOARD
(Correctional Service of Canada)
Respondent
Indexed as
UCCO-SACC-CSN v. Treasury Board (Correctional Service of Canada
In the matter of a complaint made under section 23 of the Public Service Staff Relations Act
REASONS FOR DECISION
Before: Jean-Pierre Tessier, Board Member
For the Complainant: Maurice Laplante, Counsel
For the Respondent: Jennifer Champagne, Counsel
August 28 and 29 and December 9, 2003.
(P.S.L.R.B. Translation)
Complaint before the Board
[1] This decision concerns a complaint that was filed by the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers (UCCO-SACC-CSN) (the Union) under section 23 of the Public Service Staff Relations Act. The Union alleged that the Treasury Board dealt directly with certain employees, thereby embarrassing the Union and that it used threats, reprisals and abuse of power against employees, and in particular, against emergency response team members.
[2] Before the start of the hearing, the Treasury Board had raised a preliminary objection that the complaint was flawed because it named the Treasury Board and not individuals as the respondent. The Union indicated that it could identify individuals later. The employer's objection was not argued by the parties in their pleadings. In my decision, I did not address this preliminary objection but rather analysed the complaint on its merits.
[3] In a decision rendered on June 21, 2004 (2004 PSSRB 71), I allowed the complaint in part, ruling that the Treasury Board had indeed interfered in the affairs of the Union with respect to one of the incidents alleged by the Union.
[4] An application for judicial review was filed by each party; on October 14, 2005 (2005 FCA 331), the Federal Court of Appeal allowed the application by the Treasury Board. In its analysis, that Court found as follows, at paragraphs 34 and 35 of its decision:
[Translation]
[34] I am therefore of the opinion that the preliminary objection raised by the Board is founded and that the Board Member ought to have allowed it. This would have led him to dismiss the complaint by the Union as made. Even if the Board Member considered the complaint as amended by the list of names filed by the union, the absence of evidence that those persons had done anything whatsoever could not have led him to the same conclusion.
[35] The application for judicial review filed by the Board should be allowed with costs, the decision by the Board Member overturned, and the case returned to him for reconsideration of the Union's complaints, on the basis that the Board is not subject to a finding of fault for violation of section 8 of the Act and that the Union's complaints should therefore be dismissed. . . .
[Emphasis added.]
Reasons
[5] In light of the decision and order by the Federal Court of Appeal and after reconsidering the complaint, I conclude that I must allow the preliminary objection raised by the Treasury Board and thus I find that the complaint, as worded, must be dismissed.
[6] For these reasons, the Board makes the following order:
[7] The complaint is dismissed.
January 10, 2006.
P.S.L.R.B. Translation
Jean-Pierre Tessier,
Board Member