FPSLREB Decisions

Decision Information

Turnbull v. Communications Security Establishment

Collection FPSLREB Decisions
Decision Rendered 2025-06-16
Citation 2025 FPSLREB 74
Before Brian Russell
Decision Type Labour Relations
Subject Terms Extension of time
Jurisdiction
Leave without pay
Time limit
Keywords Labour relations – Individual grievance – Administrative leave without pay – Policy on COVID-19 Vaccination for Employees of the Communications Security Establishment (“the Policy”) – Objection – Jurisdiction – Burchill principle (Burchill v. Canada (Attorney General), [1981] 1 F.C. 109 (C.A.) – Section 209 of the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act (S.C. 2003, c. 22, s. 2; “the Act”) – Timeliness – Schenkman v. Treasury Board (Public Works and Government Services Canada), 2004 PSSRB 1
Original Language English
Note Please note that this decision will be published when it is available in both official languages. If you wish to obtain a copy of the decision in the official language it was written, please communicate with mail.courrier@fpslreb-crtespf.gc.ca.
Summary:

The applicant filed a grievance, challenging the respondent’s decision to put her on administrative leave without pay for not complying with the Policy. The respondent filed two objections. First, it objected to the referral to adjudication of the applicant’s grievance under s. 209(1)(a) of the Act, as her discrimination allegations were not raised during the grievance process. The respondent submitted that that constituted a change to the grievance, which is not allowed by the Burchill principle. The Board examined the grievance’s wording and found that it made no reference to discrimination. It allowed the first objection. The second objection concerned the grievance’s timeliness. It was referred to adjudication around two years after the deadline had passed. The applicant submitted that the delay was due to the bargaining agent’s error. The Board applied the Schenkman criteria and found that the length of the delay, the applicant’s lack of due diligence, and the lack of a clear, cogent, and compelling reason for the delay all weighed against granting the application for an extension of time.

Objections allowed.
Application dismissed.

Decision Content

There is no document available for this decision.
 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.