FPSLREB Decisions

The complainant, who identified as being of Afro-South American descent, made a complaint under s. 77(1)(b) of the Public Service Employment Act (S.C. 2003, c. 22, ss. 12, 13; PSEA), alleging that the employer abused its authority when it chose to extend an acting appointment through a non-advertised appointment process and that anti-Black discrimination was a factor in the decision. The employer argued that most of the complaint related to an earlier staffing process and that it was based on allegations of systemic discrimination, both of which fell outside the scope of an individual staffing complaint. It further argued that its choice of process was justified in the circumstances. The Board found first that the allegations relating to the earlier staffing process were beyond the scope of this complaint. Second, while the Board can apply and interpret the CHRA to address discrimination within specific staffing complaints, it does not have the mandate under the PSEA to conduct a broad inquiry into systemic discrimination. While evidence of systemic discrimination can be heard and admitted in the process of an individual complaint, it is not enough, on its own, to establish a claim of adverse differential treatment or systemic or individual discrimination. In the complainant’s case, apart from general allegations of differential treatment and systemic discrimination, there was no evidence to establish that her race, colour, or ethnicity was a factor in the employer’s decision to use a non-advertised staffing process.

Complaint dismissed.