FPSLREB Decisions

Decision Information

Aiken v. Canada Revenue Agency

Collection FPSLREB Decisions
Decision Rendered 2026-03-25
Citation 2026 FPSLREB 24
Before Augustus Richardson
Decision Type Labour Relations
Subject Terms People with disabilities
Reprisal
Unfair labour practice
Keywords Labour relations – Complaint – Unfair labour practice – s. 190 of the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act (S.C. 2003, c. 22, s. 2; “the Act”) – Reprisal – s. 133 of the Canada Labour Code (R.S.C., 1985, c. L-2; “the Code”) – Harassment investigation – Letter internal to the bargaining agent’s Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Committee was shared with the respondent – Complainant with a disability – Complainant alleged that the written communication stemmed from his disability – Initiating an investigation does not constitute a penalty – Consolidation order – Anonymization request
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 complainants made four complaints against the respondent with the Board. Each made an unfair-labour-practice complaint and a reprisal complaint. The Board consolidated all four files. The complainants’ allegations arose from the same incident. As members of their bargaining agent’s OHS Committee, they authored a letter that raised concerns about the alleged dysfunction in the regional OHS Committee. The letter attributed much of the dysfunction to the alleged behaviour of the regional OHS advisor. The regional OHS advisor filed a grievance, alleging harassment by the two complainants. The respondent initiated an investigation. The complainants submitted that their letter constituted protected union activity and that the respondent’s investigation constituted both a reprisal and an unfair labour practice. One of the complainants has a disability, which he claimed makes it difficult for him to communicate orally and was why he raised his concerns in writing. The Board found that the decision to initiate a harassment investigation did not fit within the prohibited acts enumerated in s. 147 of the Code and dismissed the reprisal complaints. It also found that initiating a harassment investigation does not fall within the prohibited acts set out in the Act and dismissed the unfair-labour-practice complaints. It denied the complainant’s request for an anonymization order, as other reasonably alternative measures were available, namely, not mentioning his disability.

Complaints dismissed.
Consolidation ordered.
Anonymization request 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.