FPSLREB Decisions

Decision Information

Brockerville v. Canada Revenue Agency

Collection FPSLREB Decisions
Decision Rendered 2025-07-07
Citation 2025 FPSLREB 83
Before Brian Russell
Decision Type Labour Relations
Subject Terms Extension of time
Jurisdiction
Time limit
Keywords Labour relations – Termination grievance – Security-clearance revocation – Objection – Jurisdiction – Timeliness – Application for extension of time – 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 referred two grievances to adjudication. She grieved the respondent’s decisions to terminate her employment for disciplinary reasons and to revoke her security clearance. The respondent raised two preliminary objections. First, the security-clearance grievance was filed outside the time limit provided in the relevant collective agreement. Second, her security-clearance revocation was outside the Board’s authority because it was not a breach of discipline or misconduct. The Board dealt only with the first objection because the application for an extension of time was denied. In response to the first objection, the applicant requested an extension of time to file her grievance. When determining the timeliness objection, the Board applied the Schenkman criteria. The applicant acknowledged that the security-clearance grievance was filed late and argued that the delay was attributable solely to the bargaining agent. She also argued that her application should be granted, in the interest of fairness. The Board found that the applicant did not provide clear, cogent, and compelling reasons for the delay. It also found that she was not diligent in pursuing her grievance, and the length of time taken to file it was an issue. However, it found that the prejudice to her would be greater were the application denied. For those reasons, the Board allowed the respondent’s timeliness objection and dismissed the application for an extension of time.

Objection allowed.
Application for an extension of time 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.