FPSLREB Decisions

Decision Information

Dalling v. Treasury Board (Department of Human Resources and Skills Development)

Collection FPSLREB Decisions
Decision Rendered 2005-02-04
Citation 2005 PSSRB 11
File Number 166-02-32694
Before Yvon Tarte
Decision Type Labour Relations
Original Language English
Summary:

No summary has been written for this decision. Please refer to the full text.

Decision Content



Public Service Staff Relations Act

Coat of Arms - Armoiries
  • Date:  2005-02-04
  • File:  166-02-32694
  • Citation:  2005 PSSRB 11

Before the Public Service Staff Relations Board

BETWEEN

LEE ANN DALLING

Grievor

and

TREASURY BOARD
(Department of Human Resources and Skills Development)

Employer


EXPEDITED ADJUDICATION DECISION




Before:  Yvon Tarte, Chairperson

For the Grievor:  Cécile La Bissonnière, Public Service Alliance of Canada

For the Employer:  Guy Cyr

Note :    The parties have agreed to deal with the grievance by way of expedited adjudication. The decision is final and binding on the parties and cannot constitute a precedent or be referred for judicial review to the Federal Court.

Heard at Ottawa, Ontario,
January 28, 2005.

[1]    Ms. Dalling had initially grieved alleged violations of articles 34 (Vacation Leave) and 53 (Leave With or Without Pay for Other Reasons) of the Agreement between the Treasury Board and the Public Service Alliance of Canada for all employees of the program and administrative services group. At the expedited hearing, only the "special leave" portion of the grievance (article 53) remained at issue.

[2]    The parties filed the following statement of agreed facts:

  1. The employee is a PM-01 subject to the Program and Administrative Services Collective Agreement.

  2. The employee filed the present grievance on June 14, 2002, regarding management's decision to deny her May 29, 2002 leave request for Vacation Leave under Article 34 and Leave With Pay for Other Reasons - [Leave with Pay (International sporting events)] under Article 53, of the Program and Administrative Services Collective Agreement.

  3. The grievor submitted an application for leave on May 29, 2002. The following was her request:

    July 8, 2002 (Vacation Leave);

    July 12, 2002 to August 02, 2002 (Vacation Leave);

    September 20, 2002 (Vacation Leave);

    November 18, 2002 to December 13, 2002 [Leave with Pay for Other Reasons - (Leave With Pay - International sporting events)].

  4. Pursuant to the Treasury Board's Leave with Pay Policy, Management advised the employee that they could not approve her Leave with Pay request given that she had not applied her Vacation Leave toward the time requested to attend the competition. The grievor was advised that she could take her Vacation Leave in July as requested, however, the Leave With Pay - [(Leave With Pay (International sporting events)] requested for the competition would then have to be Leave Without Pay for Other Reasons.

  5. On June 14, 2002, the grievor presented a Doctor's note which recommended that she not work during July and August.

  6. The grievor did not take her Vacation Leave during the summer. The grievor was on certified sick leave for the period of July 2, 2002 to July 31, 2002.

  7. Upon further review it was determined that management's interpretation of the Leave with Pay Policy was inexact as they had requested that the grievor liquidate all of her Vacation Leave toward the competition.

  8. As a result of this review, the grievor was allowed to attend the competition with no loss of pay. Management agreed to match any Vacation Leave used to attend the sporting event with Leave With Pay for Other Reasons - [Leave with Pay (International sporting events)].

[3]    The grievor finds the employer's interpretation and application of the collective agreement unreasonable. She believes that the employer's restrictions on the granting of special leave are unreasonable.

[4]    Subclause 53.01(b) of the collective agreement (at issue in this case) states that the employer may, at its discretion, grant leave with or without pay for purposes other than those specified in the agreement.

[5]    Unlike subclause 53.01(a), where the leave covered cannot be unreasonably withheld, the employer's discretion under 53.01(b) is unfettered.

[6]    Given the clear discretion given to the employer under subclause 53.01(b), its interpretation and application of the subclause in this case were appropriate.

[7]    The grievance is therefore denied.

Yvon Tarte,
Chairperson

OTTAWA, February 4, 2005.

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.