FPSLREB Decisions

Grievances referred to adjudication

1 Emmanuel Villarceau (“the grievor”) was an employee of Passport Canada (“the employer”) in Gatineau. On November 8, 2004, the employer informed him that he was being suspended without pay during an administrative investigation into non-compliance with the Passport Office’s established policies and procedures. On November 11, 2004, Mr. Villarceau filed a grievance against the suspension (PSSRB File No. 166-02-36528). The reply at the final level of the grievance process was received on July 22, 2005, and the grievance was referred to adjudication on September 1, 2005.

2 On April 1, 2005, the Public Service Labour Relations Act (“the 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, the reference to adjudication in file 166-02-36528 must be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of the Public Service Staff Relations Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. P-35.

3 On March 24, 2005, the employer notified Mr. Villarceau that it was terminating his employment following the administrative investigation. The following paragraph of the dismissal letter summarizes the reasons for the employer’s decision:

[Translation]

…

You were negligent and insubordinate in performing your duties as an examiner at Passport Canada. In particular, you were guilty of misconduct when you intentionally created and determined the eligibility of fraudulent passport applications.

…

4 On April 6, 2005, Mr. Villarceau contested the employer’s decision to terminate his employment (PSLRB File No. 566-02-15). The reply at the final level of the grievance process was received on July 22, 2005, and the grievance was referred to adjudication on September 1, 2005. The reference to adjudication for that grievance must be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of the Act.

5 The Public Service Labour Relations Board (“the Board”) proposed to the parties that the grievance be heard in March 2006 and then in August 2006. Those months were not accepted because one of the employer’s witnesses was not available. The Board then proposed September 2006, but the bargaining agent, the Public Service Alliance of Canada, was not available. The hearing was scheduled for November 27 to 30, 2006. At the bargaining agent’s request, the Board agreed to postpone the hearing dates because Mr. Villarceau was to appear in court on November 28, 2006. The Board then agreed not to schedule any hearing dates until Mr. Villarceau’s court hearing had taken place. In September 2007, the bargaining agent notified the Board that it was no longer representing Mr. Villarceau. In January 2008, Mr. Villarceau informed the Board that he wanted his grievance files to remain open.

6 In November 2007, the Court of Quebec sentenced Mr. Villarceau to 24 months in custody for 26 criminal offences committed between December 2003 and November 2004. On February 29, 2008, the employer filed an application with the Board stating that Mr. Villarceau’s grievance files could not remain open and that they should be closed in light of his criminal conviction. The Board decided to keep the files open and informed the parties that it would hear them on this question at the hearing. Mr. Villarceau then requested that the hearing not be scheduled before August 2008.

7 On August 15, 2008, the Board suggested various hearing dates to the parties in February and March 2009. Both parties stated that they were available at the end of March 2009. On September 19, 2008, the Board notified the parties that the hearing would take place from March 23 to 27, 2009.

8 On January 15, 2009, the Board sent the parties a letter to determine their availabilities for a pre-hearing conference between January 21 and 30, 2009. The Board’s file contains proof that Mr. Villarceau received the letter at his home at 15:29 on the same day it was sent. Mr. Villarceau did not reply to the Board’s request.

9 On January 29, 2009, the Board wrote to Mr. Villarceau to ask him whether he still intended to proceed with the adjudication of his grievances. The Board’s file contains proof that Mr. Villarceau received the letter at his home at 16:07 on the same day it was sent. Mr. Villarceau did not reply to the Board’s request.

10 On February 18, 2009, the Board sent Mr. Villarceau a notice of hearing stating that the hearing would be held on March 23, 2009 at 09:30 in Ottawa. The Board’s file contains proof that Mr. Villarceau received the letter at his home at 10:47 on February 19. The notice of hearing contained the following statement:

…

AND FURTHER TAKE NOTICE that if you fail to attend the hearing or any continuation thereof, the adjudicator may dispose of the matter on the evidence and representations placed at the hearing without further notice to you.

…

11 Mr. Villarceau did not appear at the hearing at 09:30 on March 23, 2009. At 10:00, I told the employer that it could leave since everything suggested that Mr. Villarceau would not appear. At 11:00, I returned to the hearing room, and Mr. Villarceau was not there. Between 09:45 and 10:00, the Registry Operations and Policy Branch of the Board twice tried to reach Mr. Villarceau by telephone at his home. There was no answer. Finally, at 11:54, Mr. Villarceau called the Registry Operations and Policy Branch of the Board, stating that he did not intend to continue the proceedings relating to his grievances.

Reasons

12 After consulting the parties, the Board informed Mr. Villarceau on September 19, 2008 that his grievances would be heard from March 23 to 27, 2009. On February 18, 2009, the Board sent Mr. Villarceau a notice of hearing stating that the hearing would take place on March 23, 2009.

13 On March 23, 2009, Mr. Villarceau did not appear at the hearing, which was supposed to start at 09:30. He called later, at 11:54, to say that he did not intend to continue the proceedings relating to his grievances.

14 I therefore conclude, as the adjudicator did in Synowski v. Deputy Head (Department of Health), 2007 PSLRB 63, that Mr. Villarceau has abandoned his grievances or withdrawn them from the adjudication process. Based on that conclusion, the grievances are dismissed.

15 For all of the above reasons, I make the following order:

Order

16 The grievances are dismissed.

April 1, 2009.

PSLRB Translation

Renaud Paquet,
adjudicator