FPSLREB Decisions

Individual grievance referred to adjudication

1  On November 1, 2010, Rohma Chaudhary (“the grievor”) filed a grievance with the Public Service Labour Relations Board (“the Board”). She grieved that, in or about January 2010, she had been deployed without her consent. She alleged that the Board had jurisdiction to hear her grievance pursuant to subparagraph 209(1)(c)(ii) of the Public Service Labour Relations Act (“the Act”).

2 In response, the Department of Health (“the employer”) took the position that the grievor’s position had simply evolved during the time she was on leave and that there had been no deployment within the meaning of the applicable statutory and regulatory regime that governed that issue. It also took the position that the grievor had filed her grievance late. For those reasons, the employer maintained that an adjudicator lacked jurisdiction to hear the grievance.

3 In due course, the matter was scheduled to be heard in Ottawa on June 4 to 6, 2013.

Summary of the evidence

4 The hearing opened on the morning of June 4, 2013. At that time, counsel for the grievor advised that he was seeking an adjournment because the grievor (who was not present) was unable to attend due to medical reasons. He introduced a one-page note from the grievor’s treating psychologist, which he said he had received from the grievor late in the evening of Monday, June 3.

5 The note, dated June 3, indicated that the grievor had been in therapy with the psychologist since 2004. It advised that “[r]ecently, I [the psychologist] have assessed her and found her levels of anxiety have risen to disabling levels.” The psychologist was optimistic that the grievor “… will be more functional in about two weeks’ time,” but that, until then, the grievor “… requires respite from any legal or quasi-legal proceedings:” (Exhibit G-1).

Summary of the arguments

6 Counsel for the grievor advised that he understood that it was unlikely that the Board would be able to reschedule a hearing within two weeks and that a more likely hearing date would be some time in the vicinity of November. In any event, he requested that the hearing be adjourned and rescheduled to a later date.

7 I had some reluctance acceding to this request. The grievance had been filed almost two-and-a-half years ago. The matter had been scheduled for some time. The note came at the very last minute and was based on a condition-anxiety-that is a common feature of most if not all grievance hearings. If adjournments were granted for that reason alone, many hearings would never be able to proceed.

8 That said, it was also true that the psychologist’s note was more fulsome than the one-line medical notes one often sees in such situations. It had been prepared by someone who, on the face of it, had extensive experience treating the grievor. It provided a factual basis for the opinion that the grievor’s anxiety was disabling and held the expectation that, with treatment the grievor would be able to deal with a hearing in the near future.

9 There is also the fact that counsel for the employer did not object to the request for an adjournment on medical reasons.

Reasons

10 Taking all those factors into account, I decided to grant the grievor’s request for an adjournment, but on certain terms. Following submissions by both counsel for the employer and for the grievor, it was agreed that the following order should be made on consent. This consent order also furthers several principles enunciated in the preamble of the Act, such as the importance of effective labour-management relations as a cornerstone of good human resource management; and the commitment to a fair, credible and efficient resolution of matters arising in respect of terms and conditions of employment. The terms of the consent order follow:

1. The hearing would be adjourned to a new date to be set by the Board.
2. The grievor would, on or before August 31, produce to the employer any and all documents that she intended to rely upon in support of her allegation that she had been deployed without her consent.
3. The new hearing date would be final.  The grievor is reminded that under subsection 102(2) of the Public Service Labour Relations Board Regulations, if a party fails to attend a hearing after having been provided with a notice of it, the adjudicator may proceed with the hearing and dispose of the matter without further notice to that person.

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

Order

12 The hearing of File No. PSLRB 566-02-4663 is adjourned to a new date to be set by the Board.

13 The grievor or her representative shall produce to the employer, on or before August 31, 2013, any and all documents that the grievor intends to rely upon in support of her allegation that she had been deployed without her consent.

14 The new hearing date shall be considered final.

June 19, 2013.

Augustus Richardson,
adjudicator