FPSLREB Decisions
Decision Information
No summary has been written for this decision.Please refer to the full text.
Decision Content
Public Service
Labour Relations Act
- Date: 2012-08-10
- File: 566-02-3241
- Citation: 2012 PSLRB 83
Before an adjudicator
BETWEEN
COLINA MCNEIL
Grievor
and
TREASURY BOARD
(Department of Human Resources and Skills Development)
Employer
Indexed as
McNeil v. Treasury Board (Department of Human Resources and Skills Development)
In the matter of an individual grievance referred to adjudication
REASONS FOR DECISION
June 29, 2012.
Objection to jurisdiction
1 The adjudication hearing took place on June 29, 2012.
2 Three days before the hearing, the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development (“the employer”) gave notice that it intended to raise an objection to the jurisdiction of an adjudicator to hear the matter, based on subsection 208(2) of the Public Service Labour Relations Act, submitting that Colina McNeil (“the grievor”) could not file an individual grievance because another administrative procedure for redress is provided under other Acts of Parliament and because the relevant clause of the collective agreement in effect does not create substantive rights that can be grieved.
3 On my direction, the parties were advised that the issue of jurisdiction should be raised at the outset of the hearing.
4 At the hearing, counsel for the employer advised that, on the previous day, June 28, 2012, the same jurisdictional objection was raised in an adjudication before another adjudicator of the Public Service Labour Relations Board about a policy grievance filed by the Public Service Alliance of Canada in PSLRB File Nos. 567-02-68 to 71. Argument on the jurisdictional issue took the full day, and the adjudicator reserved his decision on the issue.
5 Counsel for the employer also submitted that the lack of notice did not constitute a waiver of the employer’s right to raise the jurisdictional issue, citing Boutilier v. Canada (Treasury Board), [1999] 1 F.C. 459, and Wray et al. v. Treasury Board (Department of Transport), 2012 PSLRB 64.
6 The grievor’s representative advised that he received notice of the jurisdictional objection only on June 27 and requested a postponement of the hearing to properly prepare his argument on the issue.
7 I indicated that I would like to proceed on the merits but that I would reserve argument on the jurisdictional issue until the adjudicator in the above-noted policy grievance had delivered his decision.
8 After a short adjournment during which the parties took instruction, both representatives advised they wished to wait for that decision before proceeding and agreed to forgo argument before me on the jurisdictional issue. They instead agreed to be bound by the jurisdiction decision in the above-noted files.
9 For all of the above reasons, I make the following order:
Order
10 This matter is adjourned sine die. I will continue to retain jurisdiction.
August 10, 2012.
William H. Kydd,
adjudicator