FPSLREB Decisions
Decision Information
Impartiality - Procedural fairness - Public Service Staff Relations Act, section 23 - Jurisdiction - the complainant complained against an appeals officer in the Investigation Branch of the Public Service Commission, alleging that she had not been impartial and that she had not followed the rules of procedural fairness during an investigation that she conducted pursuant to the Public Service Employment Act - the employer objected to the Board's jurisdiction to hear the complaint, on the basis that the only person named in the complaint was not a representative of the employer - the complainant agreed with the employer's position - the Board concurred and found it had no jurisdiction to hear the complaint. Complaint dismissed.
Decision Content
File: 161-2-849 Public Service Staff Before the Public Service Relations Act Staff Relations Board BETWEEN DAVE GIROUX Complainant and PHYLLIS MARTIN Respondent RE: Complaint under Section 23 of the Public Service Staff Relations Act
Before: Rosemary Vondette Simpson, Board Member For the Complainant: Bruce Simpson, Counsel For the Respondent: Ross Munro Heard at Ottawa, Ontario, May 21, 1998.
Decision Page 1 DECISION The complainant, Dave Giroux, submitted the following complaint under section 23 of the Public Service Staff Relations Act: Phylis (sic) Martin, of the Public Service Commission Investigations Branch was not unbiased and did not follow the rules of due process. She found Health Canada "should have held a competition, with attendant appeal rights for the purpose of selecting employees for subsequent term appointments" yet did nothing to correct this which was the idea.
At the hearing which convened on May 21, 1988, objection was taken to the Board’s jurisdiction by the employer on the grounds there were no allegations against any employer representatives. The only person named in the complaint was an Appeals Officer, Phyllis Martin, who is not an employer representative and who had acted under section 7 of the Public Service Employment Act. There were no allegations of interference with grievance rights.
Counsel for Mr. Giroux gave some background information on behalf of Mr. Giroux, including the fact that he had represented him and was continuing to represent him in Public Service Employment Act matters before the Public Service Commission. Counsel for Mr. Giroux was given an opportunity to examine the legislation and consult with Mr. Giroux privately. It was agreed that the Board had no jurisdiction in this matter.
Reasons for Decision It is trite law that my jurisdiction is derived from the Public Service Staff Relations Act (PSSRA). I agree with the position of the parties that the Board has no jurisdiction under the Public Service Staff Relations Act to deal with the issues raised in the complaint. Because the Board cannot take jurisdiction in this matter, I will not comment on matters raised by Mr. Giroux' counsel relating to his appeals under the Public Service Employment Act.
Public Service Staff Relations Board
Decision The complaint is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
OTTAWA, June 19, 1998.
Public Service Staff Relations Board
Page 2 Rosemary Vondette Simpson, Board Member