FPSLREB Decisions

On March 10, 2020, the grievor filed a first grievance that contained harassment allegations. In September 2021, the employer responded to his allegations by informing him that it would investigate them. On September 29, 2021, the parties agreed to put the first grievance in abeyance, to allow the employer time to fully investigate. The first grievance was still held in abeyance at the third level of the grievance process when the panel of the Board was seized of the matter. The employer hired an investigator to investigate the grievor’s allegations. In June 2022, the investigator and the grievor had a disagreement concerning documentation. Moreover, the grievor alleged that the investigator was interacting with him in a racially biased manner. In late June-early July 2022, the investigator released a preliminary report. According to the grievor, the report was riddled with errors and omissions. His representative contacted the employer, to discuss her concerns and to request that the employer halt the investigation and replace the investigator. On September 27, 2022, the employer responded that the investigation would continue under the current investigator. On October 22, 2022, the grievor filed a second grievance concerning the employer’s failure to provide him with a harassment-free workplace and its failure to address his harassment in good faith or to provide a harassment investigation process that was procedurally fair and not discriminatory. This decision pertained to the second grievance. The employer objected to the Board’s jurisdiction to hear the second grievance, as the allegation that the employer failed to provide a harassment-free workplace was already before the employer as part of the first grievance. The Board agreed. The second grievance’s focus on the employer’s investigator and the report was not a complaint about an event that was separate and distinct from the first grievance. The grievance about the investigation and its report was about a possible foundation of a decision — yet to be made — by the employer as to the first grievance’s merits. Until the employer made its final-level response, the Board lacked jurisdiction to consider whether the investigation was defective in some way. The employer also objected to the Board’s jurisdiction to hear the second grievance on the basis of untimeliness. The Board determined that the objection was moot. Had it been necessary to decide the issue, the Board would have found that the grievor first became aware of the acts or circumstances that gave rise to the grievance in June or early July of 2022. Accordingly, the second grievance was filed outside the 25-day time limit.

Objection allowed.