FPSLREB Decisions

Revocation of appointment - Whether disguised disciplinary action - Estoppel - Separate employer - Jurisdiction - this is a preliminary decision dealing solely with the issue of the adjudicator's jurisdiction to entertain the grievance - the grievor, who had been employed as a CR-3 at the Sudbury Tax Office, was the successful candidate for a CS-1 position in Ottawa - she wished to leave Sudbury to escape an abusive marriage - as a result of the job offer, the grievor obtained a variance in her divorce agreement with respect to her mobility with her children outside the Sudbury area - she then sold her home and purchased a home in Ottawa - she commenced working in her new position in July 2000 - subsequently, following complaints by the grievor's ex-husband to the effect that she did not meet the selection criteria for the position, the employer undertook a review of the competition process - the employer concluded that the grievor had provided the selection board with inaccurate information concerning her address, education and experience - therefore, the employer revoked her appointment to the CS-1 position - the employer then offered the grievor a temporary CR-3 position in the Ottawa area to enable her to make other arrangements - with respect to the area of competition for the CS-1 position which was restricted to persons residing in the Ottawa area, the grievor alleged that the selection board had waived that requirement, as she had been interviewed by telephone in her Sudbury office - the employer claimed that the revocation of the grievor's appointment was administrative in nature rather than disciplinary - therefore, an adjudicator had no jurisdiction to hear and determine the grievance - the grievor, however, maintained that it was disguised disciplinary action and, therefore, an adjudicator did have jurisdiction - furthermore, she maintained that the employer was estopped from revoking her appointment - the adjudicator concluded that there was insufficient evidence to enable him to determine whether or not he had jurisdiction to hear and determine the grievance - he indicated that the grievor had at least advanced the possibility that the matter could be disciplinary in nature - he, therefore, directed the Secretary of the Board to establish dates for a full hearing on the merits to enable him to determine whether or not he had jurisdiction - at that hearing, the parties should also address the estoppel issue raised by the grievor. Directions given. Case cited:Tudor-Price (166-2-10155).