FPSLREB Decisions

Complaints before the Board

1 On November 8, 2007, Marcel Martel, a Canada Revenue Agency employee and a member of the Public Service Alliance of Canada, filed a complaint with the Public Service Labour Relations Board (“the Board”) under paragraph 190(1)(g) of the Public Service Labour Relations Act (“the Act”) against the Public Service Alliance of Canada (“the respondent”) and its representatives, namely, Jacquie de Aguayo, Céline Pétrin, Lyson Paquette, Michèle Tranchemontagne, Denise Lavergne and Linda Cassidy. Mr. Martel alleges that the respondent and its representatives acted in bad faith and in a discriminatory fashion, thus failing to comply with the provisions of section 187 of the Act. The complaint is directed at the quality of the representation provided by the respondent and its refusal to refer grievances to adjudication.

2 Between December 5 and 7, 2007, François Bacave, Danielle Dazé, Martin Girard, Pierre Léger, Marc Novak and Stephen Thibault (together with Mr. Martel, “the complainants”) filed individual requests with the Board “[translation] to be added” to the complaint that Mr. Martel filed on November 8, 2007. Following those requests, the Board decided to consolidate the complaints and deal with them together, given that they involve the same actions alleged against the respondent and its representatives.

3 The dispute arises from the union representation provided for three grievances. Briefly, the first grievance deals with the requirement for a university degree, the second with a position profile and the third with acting pay. The complainants received replies at the final level of the internal grievance process on January 18, 2007 for the first grievance, on January 30, 2007 for the second, and on July 24, 2007 for the third.

4 The complainants and the respondent then had discussions about the appropriateness of referring the grievances to adjudication. According to the complainants, the discussions ended on April 13, 2007 for the first and second grievances and on September 28, 2007 for the third. According to the respondent, the discussions ended on February 23, 2007 for the first and second grievances and on September 11, 2007 for the third.

5 On December 4, 2007, the respondent’s representative objected to the Board that the complaint filed by Mr. Martel on November 8, 2007, was filed after the 90-day time limit set out in subsection 190(2) of the Act, at least for the first two grievances.

6 On January 30, 2008, the Board informed the parties that it would deal with the respondent’s objection after receiving written submissions on the matter. The Board received those submissions on February 15, March 3 and March 11, 2008. I will deal with the objection to the failure to meet the 90-day time limit on the basis of those submissions as well as documents on file.

Summary of the arguments

7 The respondent maintains its objection that the Board cannot consider the complaint for events related to the first and second grievances because the complaint was filed after the 90-day time limit set out in subsection 190(2) of the Act. The respondent indicates, however, that it does not object to the time for the filing of the complaint about the third grievance. That complaint was about the decision not to pursue adjudication and was made on September 11 and confirmed to the complainants on September 28, 2007.

8 Following the filing of the respondent’s objection, the complainants wrote the following in a letter received by the Board on December 18, 2007: “[translation] … Of course, you understood that the said complaint is about the grievance on acting pay. Therefore, the complaint is about that grievance, and all of the submitted documents explain the series of events that gave rise to that complaint …” However, the complainants also indicate in their written submissions dated March 3, 2008, that “[translation] … the breaches described in files A [university degree requirement] and B [position profile] support and complement the complaint for file C [acting pay] …”

9 The respondent replied by stating that the complainants’ position is contradictory since they claim on the one hand that the complaint is only about the third grievance and on the other hand that the complaint is substantiated by the first and second grievances. The complainants must make a choice: either the complaints are about the representation provided for all three grievances or about only the third grievance. The respondent therefore asks that the Board reject the complaint about the first and second grievances because it is out of time and that the Board not allow the complainants to rely on the decision about the referral of the grievances to adjudication to support their allegations about the third grievance.

Reasons

10 A review of the documents on file and the parties’ written submissions reveals that the complaint filed by the complainants cannot deal with the first two grievances. On April 13, 2007, the respondent indicated to the complainants that the file was closed and that there was no question of the grievances being referred to adjudication. The complaint dealt with in this decision is dated November 8, 2007. That is without a doubt past the 90-day time limit set out in the Act.

11 Given that the complaint is only about representation for the third grievance, only evidence on actions or decisions of the bargaining agent involving the third grievance will be allowed at the complaint hearing.

12 For all of the above reasons, the Board makes the following order:

Order

13 I accept the objection of the respondent that the complaint should be about the third grievance only.

14 The Board will set a date to hear the complaint on its merits.

15 I hereby inform the parties that evidence will not be allowed in the hearing unless it relates to the complaint about the third grievance.

March 28, 2008.

PSLRB Translation

Renaud Paquet,
Board Member