FPSLREB Decisions

The applicant was put on LWOP for failing to comply with the Policy. He filed a grievance alleging that being put on LWOP was constructive dismissal. He alleged that since constructive dismissal is a form of termination, the grievance should be heard only at the final level, as provided by the collective agreement. The respondent heard the grievance at the first level and denied it. The applicant then referred his grievance to adjudication, again claiming that he was contesting a constructive dismissal. In a prior decision, the Board found that the referral was premature, as the applicant had not followed the internal grievance process. The applicant continued the internal grievance process, but the grievance was denied as untimely. He then referred it to adjudication before the Board, at which the respondent objected to the Board’s jurisdiction on the grounds that the grievance was untimely. The applicant asked for an extension of time. The Board applied the Schenkman criteria. It found that the applicant’s choice of legal strategy was not a clear, cogent, or compelling reason for the delay. It noted that the time limits for filing a grievance and referring one to adjudication are deliberately brief, to promote the finality of disputes. Not respecting the timelines would not facilitate the Board’s purpose under the Act as well as the underlying labour relations principles. It added that the parties negotiated the limit set out in the collective agreement and that the respondent should be allowed to rely on it. It denied the request for an extension of time, allowed the objection, and denied the grievance as untimely.

Extension of time denied.
Objection allowed.
Grievance denied.