Date: 20241121
File: 560-22-46483
Citation: 2024 FPSLREB 161
|
Between
Pamela Mcneil
Complainant
and
Indian Oil and Gas Canada
Respondent
Indexed as
McNeil v. Indian Oil and Gas Canada
In the matter of a complaint made under section 133 of the Canada Labour Code
Before: Bryan R. Gray, a panel of the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board
For the Complainant: Herself
For the Respondent: Nena Publicover, representative
June 26, 2024,
and on the basis of written submissions,
REASONS FOR DECISION |
[1] On January 16, 2023, Pamela McNeil (“the complainant”) filed a complaint under s. 133 of the Canada Labour Code (R.S.C., 1985, c. L-2; “the Code”), alleging that Indian Oil and Gas Canada (“the employer”) made an act of reprisal against her.
[2] She alleged that her manager filed a notice of occurrence (NOO) workplace harassment complaint against her as an act of reprisal because she had filed a NOO against him earlier.
[3] Neither party in this matter was represented by legal counsel. Despite many letters, emails and phone messages made by the Board registry to the employer’s office, the employer failed to appear for the pre-hearing conference chaired by the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board (“the Board”).
[4] The employer requested a postponement of the hearing on the afternoon before the hearing was scheduled to commence. This request was denied, and the hearing began as scheduled with the employer being represented by its human resource staff.
[5] The hearing lasted for less than one hour and the Board was not provided any jurisprudence by the parties that might have helped identify the issues of legal interpretation and related arguments.
[6] The complainant affirmed her detailed allegations written in her originating complaint. The respondent suggested that the manager at issue in this matter did not have and could not have had knowledge of the NOO made by the complainant and therefore could not have retaliated against her for making the NOO.
[7] Both parties filed documents, including several allowed by the Board after the hearing was held. The complainant asserted that her documents provided proof of her argument that her manager was aware of her filing a NOO against him.
[8] However, given my decision below on the issue of the timeliness of this complaint, this issue of whether the manager knew of the NOO filed against him is not relevant to the determination of timeliness which I must make.
[9] Given the lack of representation in this matter, no objections were made, despite the very important matter of timeliness being an issue at the outset of my analysis of the file.
[10] I noted the issue of the 90-day limit as set out in the statute, during the brief hearing and had the complainant confirm the details provided in her complaint where she stated that yes, she was aware of the NOO made against her on October 13, 2022.
[11] The clear and cogent evidence in the originating Form 26 and confirmed during the hearing sets out that the triggering event that gave rise to this complaint occurred on October 13, 2022.
[12] Section 133(2) of the Code requires that complaints be made within 90 days of the event that gave rise to them. Based on the evidence in this matter including the complainant’s admitted knowledge of the NOO filed against her, those 90 days expired on January 11, 2023.
[13] Therefore, the complaint dated January 16, 2023 was beyond the statutory deadline and is dismissed for that reason.
[14] For the above reason, the Board makes the following order:
(The Order appears on the next page)
I. Order
[15] The complaint is dismissed.
November 21, 2024.
Bryan R. Gray,
a panel of the Federal Public Sector
Labour Relations and Employment Board