FPSLREB Decisions

Jurisdiction - Training - Apprenticeship program - Term appointment - employer alleged that the grievances were not adjudicable as they did not fall within section 92 of the Public Service Staff Relations Act (PSSRA) - grievor, who had recently earned a diploma in electronics technology, was offered and accepted an appointment as an electronics apprentice for a specified period to run from October 15, 1991 to October 13, 1995 - grievor alleged that prior to accepting this offer he was advised orally by representatives of the employer that he would be provided with training courses during the four-year apprenticeship program - subsequently employer was advised by the provincial Apprenticeship Branch that persons who possessed a technologist diploma did not require additional schooling - therefore employer refused to provide grievor with any training courses - grievor alleged that the promise to provide him with training courses formed part of his employment contract, which included the collective agreement and his Contract of Apprenticeship - this grievance was therefore adjudicable pursuant to paragraph 92(1)(a) of the PSSRA - towards the end of the apprenticeship program, the employer had two term positions available and four apprentices, including the grievor - accordingly, employer established a list ranking them on the basis of suitability - because the grievor was last on the list, he was not one of the successful candidates - grievor claimed this was a disciplinary response to his attempts to require the employer to provide him with training courses - therefore, his grievance was adjudicable under paragraph 92(1)(b) of the PSSRA - adjudicator noted that grievor's first grievance was founded on an alleged violation of the collective agreement - therefore he required the support of his bargaining agent as specified in subsection 92(2) of the PSSRA - as grievor was representing himself, he clearly did not meet this requirement - adjudicator concluded that he had no jurisdiction to entertain this grievance - in relation to his second grievance, grievor had not raised the issue of an alleged disciplinary termination until after the reference to adjudication of the grievance - adjudicator found that he could not entertain what was in reality a different grievance from the one which had been submitted to the employer during the grievance procedure - furthermore, the grievor's employment was not terminated by the employer within the meaning of subsection 92(1) of the PSSRA - pursuant to section 25 of the Public Service Employment Act (PSEA), the grievor ceased to be an employee upon the expiration of his term - in addition, the fact that he was an unsuccessful candidate for the two term positions could only be challenged under the PSEA. Grievances denied. Cases cited: Queen v. Cognos Incorporated 1993 1 S.C.R. 87; Burchill v. Attorney General of Canada 1981 1 F.C. 109.