FPSLREB Decisions

The applicant filed a grievance challenging the respondent’s decision to place her on LWOP for not complying with the Policy. The grievance was filed several months beyond the time limit. The respondent denied the grievance at all levels and objected to its referral to adjudication on the grounds that it was untimely. The applicant applied for an extension of time. She claimed that she did not file the grievance within the time limit because she believed that decisions made under the Policy could not be grieved. She also cited the impact on her of being placed on LWOP. The Board applied the Schenkman criteria and found that there were no reasons other than a bargaining agent error to explain the delay, which did not amount to clear, cogent, and compelling reasons to grant an extension. It also found that the balance of prejudice criterion risks a skewed view of balance between the parties, as it will be rare that an applicant does not having some serious interest in the extension of time. It acknowledged the applicant’s loss of salary but did not consider it to rise to the level of an injustice. The respondent submitted that the Board’s interpretation of “fairness” in s. 61(b) of the Regulations must be guided and informed by the purpose of the enabling legislation and the underlying labour relations principles, such as finality, stability, efficiency, and speed. The Board responded that the text is the starting point of the analysis but accepted the importance of time limits in furthering the Act’s underlying labour relations principles. In determining what constituted fairness in the circumstances, it highlighted the importance of parties’ reliance on timelines, particularly the collective agreement’s negotiated timelines. It determined that fairness required denying the request for an extension of time.

Application dismissed.
Objection allowed.
Grievance denied.