FPSLREB Decisions

Complaint - Unfair labour practice - Failure to implement an adjudication decision - Paragraph 23(1)(c) and subsection 97(6) of the Public Service Staff Relations Act (PSSRA) - in a first decision, the adjudicator found that the complainant was entitled to the payment of a separation benefit pursuant to provision 7.3.1. of the Workforce Adjustment Directive (WFAD): (166-2-28296); (1998) 34 PSSRB Decisions 22 - the adjudicator had reserved jurisdiction to deal with any issue arising out of the implementation of his decision - the employer refused the grievor the payment of the separation benefit and the grievor applied for relief on the basis of the adjudicator's reserved jurisdiction - the employer objected to the application - in a second decision, the adjudicator found that no submission had been made by the employer, during the hearing leading to the first decision, as to its inability to make a separation-benefit payment pursuant to provision 7.3.1. of the WFAD - the adjudicator concluded that the employer was not allowed to reargue its case and that it should have filed a judicial review application had it wished to do so - the adjudicator further found that he had no authority to reconsider his first decision as to the grievor's entitlement to a separation benefit, as the earlier decision contained a final determination of that issue - the adjudicator finally concluded that, pursuant to subsections 23(1) and 97(6) of the PSSRA, the Board, and not he, had jurisdiction to deal with an allegation that the employer had failed to give effect to the decision of an adjudicator - the adjudicator therefore dismissed the application: (166-2-28296); (1999) 35 PSSRB Decision 35 - the complainant then filed a complaint pursuant to paragraph 23(1)(c) of the PSSRA - the complainant alleged that, at the hearing leading to the first decision, the employer had not argued that it had no authority to make a separation-benefit payment and that the employer was not allowed to reargue its case - the complainant added that, had the employer considered that the adjudicator made an error in law, it should have challenged the decision through a judicial review application - the employer argued that, although the adjudicator made no error in arriving at the first decision, there was no authority to make the payment he had ordered - the Board found that the reasons given by the employer not to make the payment ordered by the adjudicator were arguments that should have been raised at the hearing leading to the first decision - the employer's decision not to seek judicial review of the first decision, and its position that the decision was correct in law, left the Board with no choice but to order that the employer use whatever power or prerogative at its disposal to pay the complainant - the Board found that the employer's behaviour amounted to total contempt of the adjudication process - the employer preferred to take the law in its own hands in deciding to ignore the first decision - the Board ordered the employer to comply with the first decision within an eight-week period. Complaint allowed. Direction given..