Date: 20241212

File: 566-02-09994

 

Citation: 2024 FPSLREB 173

Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act

Before a panel of the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board

Between

 

Amanda Peterman

Grievor

 

and

 

TREASURY BOARD

(Correctional Service of Canada)

 

Employer

Indexed as

Peterman v. Treasury Board (Correctional Service of Canada)

In the matter of an individual grievance referred to adjudication

Before: Nancy Rosenberg, a panel of the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board

For the Grievor: Barry Reid

For the Employer: Marc Séguin

Decided on the basis of written submissions,
filed March 1, 15, and 22, 2024.

REASONS FOR DECISION

I. Background

[1] On December 21, 2022, I issued my decision allowing the grievance in the matter of Peterman v. Treasury Board (Correctional Service of Canada), 2022 FPSLREB 102. My order for relief was as follows:

…

[160] The employer is to pay the grievor her appropriate education allowance in the amount of $2750 per year, including any subsequent increases to that amount, beginning on her November 29, 2010 start date at Edmonton Institution, minus any amounts already paid.

[161] I will remain seized for 60 days should the parties encounter any difficulties implementing this order.

…

 

[2] Neither party contacted the Board during the 60-day period specified in my order, which expired on February 19, 2023.

[3] On January 23, 2023, within the 60-day period, the Correctional Service of Canada (“the employer”) sent its preliminary calculations, characterized as only an estimate, to the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada (“the bargaining agent”). It included the education allowance in the “top-up” amount payable for maternity leave periods.

[4] On May 25, 2023, after the 60-day period had expired, the employer produced its definitive calculations, indicating that the grievor was not entitled to the education allowance during her maternity leave periods.

[5] The bargaining agent asked for clarification, and on May 29, 2023, the employer confirmed its position that the grievor was not entitled to the education allowance during her maternity leave periods.

[6] On May 26, 2023, the bargaining agent took issue with this and so advised the employer.

[7] On October 30, 2023, the bargaining agent asked the Board to reopen the file, to determine this issue.

[8] The parties were asked to make submissions on the issue of reopening the file, and I am satisfied that I can render a decision on the basis of their written submissions.

II. Reasons

[9] Unfortunately, this issue did not squarely arise until after the 60-day period had expired. However, as the order was not implemented within the 60-day period, either party could have sought an extension to that period before it expired. As neither did, I am functus officio — no longer seized of this case.

[10] Although the Board is no longer seized of this case, should the enforcement of the Board’s order continue to be an issue, s. 234 of the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act (S.C. 2003, c. 22, s. 2) and s. 35 of the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act (S.C. 2013, c.40, s. 365) provide for filing a Board order with the Federal Court, in specified circumstances. I leave this for the parties’ further consideration.

[11] For all of the above reasons, the Board makes the following order:

(The Order appears on the next page)

III. Order

[12] The request to reopen the file is denied.

December 12, 2024.

Nancy Rosenberg,

a panel of the Federal Public Sector

Labour Relations and Employment Board