FPSLREB Decisions

Determination of membership in the bargaining unit - Members of the Trade-Marks Opposition Board (TMOB) in the Program and Administrative Services Group - Law Group bargaining unit - Section 34 of the Public Service Staff Relations Act - the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada (PIPSC) had been certified as the bargaining agent of the Law Group bargaining unit: 142-2-130 (March 31, 1969); 142-2-130 (December 13, 1977); 142-2-130 (June 16, 1999), (1999) 35 PSSRB Summaries 3 - it applied to have included in the Law Group bargaining unit two members of the TMOB employed by the employer in the Program and Administrative Services group (members) - the two members were part of a bargaining unit comprised of "all employees of the Employer in the Program and Administrative Services Group", for which the Public Service Alliance of Canada (PSAC) had been certified as the bargaining agent: (141-2-1), (1993) 24 PSSRB Summaries 2; 142-2-337 (June 7, 1999), (1999) 35 PSSRB Summaries 11; 142-2-337 (September 30, 1999) - the employer and the PSAC opposed the PIPSC's application - the two members held law degrees and were members of a Canadian Bar - they presided over legal proceedings which were adversarial in nature and rendered decisions which determined trade-mark disputes - the parties at such hearings were almost always represented by counsel - decisions rendered by the two members could be appealed to the Federal Court of Canada - other members of the TMOB did not have formal legal training - members of the TMOB did not have clients, performed no representation duties and prepared no lease, contract or legislation - they could seek legal advice from the TMOB's legal counsel or from the Department of Justice - the PIPSC asserted that the two members had been performing duties which placed them in the Law Group bargaining unit - the PSAC responded that the Board should consider the duties of the two members' positions rather than their personal circumstances - the PSAC added that duties performed by the two members more closely resembled those identified in the Program and Administrative Services Group definition - the employer argued that the PIPSC did not discharge its onus of establishing that the primary duties of the two members' positions fell within the Law Group definition - the Board noted that, at first glance, the two members' positions appeared to fall within both the Program and Administrative Services Group and the Law Group definitions - the Board found however that the Program and Administrative Services Group definition better reflected the two members' duties, as those duties did not centre around a solicitor-client relationship - the Board commented that lawyers could perform functions in groups other than the Law Group. Application dismissed.