FPSLREB Decisions

Decision Information

Bridglal v. Treasury Board (Department of Employment and Social Development)

Collection FPSLREB Decisions
Decision Rendered 2025-08-22
Citation 2025 FPSLREB 99
Before Audrey Lizotte
Decision Type Labour Relations
Subject Terms Extension of time
Jurisdiction
Time limit
Keywords Labour relations – Objection – Jurisdiction – Timeliness – Policy on COVID-19 Vaccination for the Core Public Administration Including the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (“the Policy”) – Discrimination – Refusal to grant an exemption from the Policy – Schenkman v. Treasury Board (Public Works and Government Services Canada), 2004 PSSRB 1 – Bargaining agent’s negligence
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 grieved the respondent’s decision to not grant her an exemption from the Policy. She claimed that the decision was discriminatory. The respondent objected to the timeliness of the grievance. The applicant applied for an extension of time, claiming that she would have filed a grievance sooner had she known it was possible. She claimed that the Board has found that a bargaining agent’s negligence could constitute a clear, cogent, and compelling reason justifying granting an extension of time. The Board applied the Schenkman criteria. It noted that the delay of five months was significant and that the lengthier the delay is, the greater the importance of establishing robust reasons that it would be in the interest of fairness to grant the extension. It determined that the applicant’s explanation for the delay was not credible and that consequentially, she failed to provide a compelling reason to grant her an extension of time. The Board found the applicant failed to establish her due diligence in not filing the grievance within the timelines. It stated that time limits exist for a reason and that they allow parties to discuss their differences when actions can be taken to remedy a situation while it is occurring. In this case, the respondent was deprived of the ability to look into and remedy the situation when it arose. The Board did not agree with the applicant that she would suffer greater prejudice were her request denied. Having weighed all the criteria, the Board found it was not in the interest of fairness to grant the applicant an extension of time. It allowed the respondent’s objection.

Objection allowed.
Application for an extension of time denied.

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.