FPSLREB Decisions
Decision Information
The grievor grieved that the employer initiated an administrative investigation into her actions in October 2023, alleging that it was an act of discrimination and reprisal for a grievance filed earlier, in July. The employer rejected her grievance for being untimely and objected to its referral to the Board. The grievor submitted that while the grievance form referred to a date before the 25-day filing time limit started to run, those earlier incidents were connected to the administrative investigation. The Board found that the October 2023 grievance was timely. The grievor alleged that there was a connection between the administration investigation and the earlier events, but the incident that gave rise to the grievance was the administrative investigation.
Objection dismissed.
Decision Content
Date: 20250127
Files: 566-02-50364 & 566-02-20365
Citation: 2025 FPSLREB 8
Labour Relation Act
|
Between
RAVINDER RAI
Grievor
and
TREASURY BOARD
(Royal Canadian Mounted Police)
Employer
Indexed as
Rai v. Treasury Board (Royal Canadian Mounted Police)
In the matter of an individual grievance referred to adjudication
Before: Brian Russell, a panel of the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board
For the Grievor: Tiana Knight
For the Employer: Joëlle Demers
REASONS FOR DECISION |
I. Individual grievances referred to adjudication
[1] The grievor, Ravinder Rai, filed two individual grievances. In her first grievance, filed on July 19, 2023 (“the July 2023 grievance”), Board file number 566-02-50364, she alleges that the employer, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), breached article 19, entitled “No Discrimination”, of the collective agreement between the Treasury Board and the Public Service Alliance of Canada for the Program and Administrative Services Group (“the collective agreement”) that expires on June 20, 2025. In the second grievance, filed on October 30, 2023 (“the October 2023 grievance”), Board file number 566-02-50365, she alleges that the RCMP breached both article 19 and article 18, entitled “Grievance Procedure”.
II. Objection to the October 2023 grievance referred to adjudication
[2] On July 26, 2024, the grievor referred both grievances to adjudication under s. 209(1)(a) of the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act (S.C. 2003, c. 22, s. 2).
[3] On August 29, 2024, the employer acknowledged the referrals to adjudication and raised a preliminary objection that the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board (“the Board”) is without jurisdiction to hear the October 2023 grievance because it is untimely.
[4] The parties were invited to make additional written submissions with respect to the timeliness issue. The grievor took the position that the October 2023 grievance is timely because it concerns a series of events that occurred between June 2023 and October 2023. The employer did not file additional submissions.
[5] Per s. 22 of the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act (S.C. 2013, c. 40, s. 365), the Board may decide any matter before it without holding an oral hearing.
[6] This decision deals with the employer’s preliminary objection to the timeliness of the October 2023 grievance.
[7] For the reasons that follow, the employer’s objection is dismissed.
III. Background
[8] When the October 2023 grievance was filed, the grievor was a manager classified AS-05. She worked in the RCMP’s “E” Division in Surrey, British Columbia.
IV. Summary of the evidence
[9] On July 19, 2023, the grievor filed the July 2023 grievance, alleging that the RCMP had persistently discriminated against and harassed her because of its consistent refusal to grant her acting opportunities. The most recent was her expressed interest in an IT-04 position in June 2023.
[10] On October 17, 2023, the grievor was informed that the employer would initiate an administrative investigation concerning her because of staff concerns that were raised during a managerial review.
[11] On October 30, 2023, the grievor filed the October 2023 grievance, which states as follows:
The no discrimination clause in Article 19 of the PA CA
b. Prejudice against me since filing grievance (RAI_R_374.128350.IMT_030_B005.2023_231028). Article 19 states that there should be “no interference or restriction etc…”
Article 19: No discrimination — 19.01 There shall be no discrimination, interference, restriction, coercion, harassment, intimidation, or any disciplinary action exercised or practiced with respect to an employee by reason of age, race, creed, color, national or ethnic origin, religious affiliation, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, family status, marital status, genetic characteristics, disability, membership or activity in the Alliance or a conviction for which a pardon has been granted.
Article 18: Grievance procedure — 18.02 Subject to and as provided in section 208 of the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act, an employee may present an individual grievance to the Employer if he or she feels aggrieved: b. as a result of any occurrence or matter affecting his or her terms and conditions of employment.
[12] As corrective action, she requested the following:
That the Employer cease discriminating against me on the basis of my gender and ethnicity.
That I be compensated for all losses, including pay and benefits, as well as any lost wages and any additional expenses that may result from this situation.
That the Employer cease the discriminatory practice and take measures to redress the practice and/or to prevent the same or similar practice from occurring in the future.
That the Employer make available to me the rights, opportunities and privileges that are being or were denied as a result of such practice.
That I be compensated $20 000, or such other sum deemed appropriate, for pain and suffering experienced as a result as compensation for my Employer’s willful and reckless engagement in the discriminatory practice.
That I be compensated $20 000 or such other sum deemed appropriate, as compensation for my Employer’s willful and reckless engagement in the discriminatory practice.
That the filing of this grievance will not prejudice me in any future dealings with my employer and;
That I be made whole.
V. Summary of the arguments
A. For the employer
[13] The RCMP objects to the Board’s jurisdiction to hear the October 2023 grievance on the basis that it is untimely. It submits that the grievance was filed on October 30, 2023, and that the grievor claims ongoing discrimination from June 23, 2023. It argues that the grievance was filed beyond the 25-day time limit set out in the collective agreement. It rejected the grievance for that reason at the first, second, and final levels of the grievance procedure. As such, it submits that the Board is without jurisdiction to hear the grievance because it is untimely.
B. For the grievor
[14] The grievor submits that the Board has jurisdiction to hear the October 2023 grievance because it was filed within the prescribed timeline outlined in the collective agreement.
[15] She submits that the July 2023 grievance was filed because of the persistent discrimination and harassment that she experienced and the RCMP’s consistent denial and refusal to grant her acting opportunities; the most recent was her interest in the IT-04 position in June 2023.
[16] The RCMP informed the grievor that an administrative investigation was initiated because of concerns that staff members had raised about her. She filed the October 2023 grievance on October 30, 2023. She contends that it was filed 13 calendar days after she learned about the administrative investigation, which was within the time limit stipulated in the collective agreement. She argues that the initiation of the administrative investigation was a further act of discrimination and reprisal that stemmed from her filing the July 2023 grievance.
[17] She submits that the October 2023 grievance is continuing in nature. In the section of her grievance form titled, “Date on which each act, omission or other matter giving rise to the grievance occurred”, she indicated “June 2023 to Present”, to identify the first link in the chain of discrimination set out in the July 2023 grievance. She argues that the phrase “to Present” represents the crux of the collective agreement violation; it is an essential part of the October 2023 grievance, and it is continuing discrimination and reprisal.
[18] To support her position, she points to the grievance form. She argues that both clause 18.06 (about reprisals) and article 19 (on no discrimination) are mentioned concerning the administrative investigation on October 17, 2023. She also points to the wording of the October 2023 grievance in which she alleges the prejudice that she has endured since she filed the July 2023 grievance. She cites Bowden v. Treasury Board (Canada Border Services Agency), 2021 FPSLREB 93 at para. 37, to advance her argument.
[19] She submits that when considering her submissions, the Board should adhere to the principle that adjudicators should not insist upon specific language in a grievance but should hear it, as long as it captures the parties’ real dispute. According to the grievor, the October 2023 grievance is about the discrimination and reprisal that she experienced because of the administrative investigation that was launched due to her filing the July 2023 grievance. She argues that the starting point of this pattern of discrimination was June 2023, and that the collective agreement breach was captured in the July 2023 grievance. According to her, the facts that gave rise to the October 2023 grievance took place on October 17, 2023, when she became aware of the administrative investigation.
VI. Reasons
[20] I have reviewed the parties’ submissions, and to decide the employer’s objection, I must determine the essence of the October 2023 grievance and the incident that gave rise to it. That incident establishes the date that the grievance should have been filed and whether it was timely.
[21] For the reasons that follow, I find that the October 2023 grievance is timely, and I reject the employer’s objection.
A. Collective agreement authority
[22] Article 18 of the collective agreement outlines the time limit to file a grievance. Clause 18.15 states as follows:
|
|
B. The essence of the October 2023 grievance
[23] Grievances are not well-crafted legal documents. To determine the essence, or nature of a grievance, it must be examined in the context of the facts and its wording. In addition, both the details section and the requested corrective action must be considered (see Bowden, at para. 37).
[24] In its objection, the employer argues that the grievor alleges ongoing discrimination since June 23, 2023, but that she filed the October 2023 grievance on October 30, 2023, which was beyond the time limit set out in the collective agreement. I disagree.
[25] In the grievance details, the grievor alleges that she was discriminated against since she filed the July 2023 grievance. She contends that that grievance’s filing and the RCMP’s initiation of the administrative investigation on October 17, 2023, were linked. She filed the October 2023 grievance nine working days after the administrative investigation was initiated. In addition, in the section of the grievance concerning the date of the act, omission, or matter giving rise to it, she indicated June 2023 to present.
[26] The employer did not respond to the grievor’s submissions concerning the grievance being timely because the grievance is about events that were connected from June 2023 to October 2023. Without a response from the employer to the contrary, I am satisfied with the grievor’s explanation that the grievance concerns events that she alleges were connected. The incident giving rise to the issues being grieved was the notice of administrative investigation on October 17, 2023, and so the grievance was filed within the time limit set out in the collective agreement.
[27] I base my decision on the details outlined in her October 2023 grievance, its context, the section concerning the “Date on which each act, omission or other matter giving rise to the grievance occurred” and the employer’s lack of a response concerning the bargaining agent’s explanation.
[28] For all of the above reasons, the Board makes the following order:
(The Order appears on the next page)
VII. Order
[29] The employer’s timeliness objection is dismissed.
Brian Russell,
a panel of the Federal Public Sector
Labour Relations and Employment Board