FPSLREB Decisions

Complaint before the Board

1 On November 23, 2009, Diane Métayer (“the complainant”) filed a complaint against the Union of Taxation Employees (“the respondent”), a component of the Public Service Alliance of Canada (PSAC). The complainant based her complaint on paragraph 190(1)(g) of the Public Service Labour Relations Act (“the Act”), which refers to section 185. The complainant did not clearly express the nature of her complaint or the respondent’s alleged failures. However, the complaint referred specifically to the following provisions of the Act:

…

190. (1) The Board must examine and inquire into any complaint made to it that

…

(g) the employer, an employee organization or any person has committed an unfair labour practice within the meaning of section 185.

…

185. In this Division, “unfair labour practice” means anything that is prohibited by subsection 186(1) or (2), section 187 or 188 or subsection 189(1).

…

187. No employee organization that is certified as the bargaining agent for a bargaining unit, and none of its officers and representatives, shall act in a manner that is arbitrary or discriminatory or that is in bad faith in the representation of any employee in the bargaining unit.

…

2 The respondent replied that the complainant was an employee of the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) until July 13, 2000, when she retired after a period of disability. On November 22, 2007, the CRA’s Compensation Client Service Centre informed her that she had received a pay equity overpayment for the period from April 1, 1999 to August 2, 2000, and that certain changes had been made to her Statement of Remuneration Paid (T4) for 2000. The parties’ documentation does not specify whether the CRA was acting as an employer or a tax collector at that time but refers to certain recovery actions made by the CRA and to the complainant’s subsequent bankruptcy.

3 Although the complainant described neither the respondent’s action or inaction that allegedly breached section 190 nor the corrective action that she seeks, I deduced that she criticized the respondent for failing to correct the CRA’s alleged mistakes with respect to the overpayment and, as a consequence, for failing to represent her interests. In any event, I am unable to conclude that, based simply on the complaint, the respondent treated the complainant in a manner that was arbitrary, discriminatory or in bad faith.

4 The parties were convened to a three-day hearing from May 30, 2011, to June 1, 2011. The PSAC representative was present, but the complainant failed to appear on May 30, 2011. The PSAC representative requested that the complaint be dismissed as abandoned. In fact, it was not the first time the complainant failed to appear at a hearing before the Public Service Labour Relations Board (“the Board”).

5 On November 16, 2009, the complainant applied to the Board for an extension of time to file a grievance against the CRA about the overpayment and the recovery. A hearing was scheduled for February 3, 2011 before Board Vice-Chairperson Michele A. Pineau, but the complainant failed to appear. Ms. Pineau dismissed the application (see Métayer v. Canada Revenue Agency, 2011 PSLRB 21).

6 In this case, it should be noted that the parties were notified on November 18, 2010 that this complaint would be heard from May 30 to June 1, 2011.

7 On June 1, 2010, a registry officer sent the complainant a letter about the respondent’s refusal to participate in mediation. The letter was returned to the registry officer, marked “Refused.” The registry officer communicated with the complainant on June 4, 2010. The complainant told the registry officer that she still lived at the same address but that she had simply refused to accept the Board’s letter. The registry officer reminded the complainant that she would continue to communicate with her by registered mail and that it would be best if the complainant would accept that mail and would notify the Board about any address or telephone number changes.

8 Despite the reminder, the complainant has stopped replying to correspondence from the Board since November 2010. Her email address appears no longer valid, since emails have been returned as undeliverable. Her telephone number is no longer in service. Registered mail sent to her from the Board was initially forwarded to a new postal address, but recent correspondence has been returned by Canada Post, marked “Moved/Unknown.” Note that, without a valid telephone number, the Board was unable to contact the complainant to remind her to appear — normal practice when a party does not appear at a hearing — before suspending the hearing.

9 The respondent’s representative stated that the respondent had the same problems communicating with the complainant over the last year.

10 As the Board stated in Ouellet v. Luce St-Georges and Public Service Alliance of Canada, 2009 PSLRB 107, the complainant has the burden of proof in a complaint filed under section 187 of the Act. To meet that burden, the complainant must adduce sufficient evidence to show that the bargaining agent or one of its representatives failed to meet its duty of fair representation. As mentioned earlier in this decision, the complaint alone does not convince me that such a failure occurred, and the complainant did not help her case by not appearing at the hearing.

11 Given the complainant’s absence on the hearing day without advance notice, I suspended the hearing. After hearing the respondent’s arguments, I concluded that the complainant chose not to pursue her complaint. Given that conclusion, the complaint is dismissed.

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

Order

13 The complaint is dismissed.

July 6, 2011.

PSLRB Translation

Stephan J. Bertrand,
Board Member