Advanced Search

Azevedo v. Deputy Head (Correctional Service of Canada) - 2025 FPSLREB 47 - 2025-05-01

Azevedo v. Deputy Head (Correctional Service of Canada), Azevedo c. Administrateur général (Service correctionnel du Canada), 2025 FPSLREB 47, 2025 CRTESPF 47 The complainant made a complaint under ss. 77(1)(a) and (b) of the PSEA, alleging that the respondent abused its authority in the application of merit and its choice

Cooke v. Deputy Head (Correctional Service of Canada) - 2025 FPSLREB 24 - 2025-03-17

The Board determined that that was not grounds for making a complaint under s. 77 of the PSEA, as a complainant cannot make a complaint on behalf of others.   [...]  [10] Under the PSEA, Ojibway is not an official language, which means that a complaint made under s. 77(1)(c) of the PSEA that the complainant was not assessed in Ojibway could not be sustained.   [...]  [127] Under the PSEA, the Board has jurisdiction to render decisions only on complaints clearly enumerated, such as those at s. 77(1).

Mehra v. Deputy Head (Statistics Canada) - 2025 FPSLREB 15 - 2025-02-11

[1] This is a complaint from Rudy Mehra (“the complainant”) made under ss. 77(1)(a) and (b) of the Public Service Employment Act (S.C. 2003, c. 22, ss. 12, 13; “the PSEA”).   [...]  He alleges that the deputy head of Statistics Canada (“the respondent”) abused its authority under ss. 30(2) and 33 of the PSEA. [2] The respondent maintains that there has been no abuse of authority.   [...]  It submitted that the Board’s powers are limited by ss. 81 and 82 of the PSEA and that the Board has no power to address what must be corrected in the future.

Verma v. Royal Canadian Mounted Police - 2025 FPSLREB 3 - 2025-01-09

[77] The same principles apply to the interpretation of the WFA Directive.   [...]  [78] In concluding that the grievor was not simultaneously a surplus and an opting employee, I interpreted the relevant provisions of the WFA Directive in the context of the FPSLRA, the PSEA, and the PSER. That legislation is incorporated by reference in the WFA Directive and therefore forms part of the collective   [...]  The power to declare an employee surplus is expressly conferred on the deputy head, and the Board has no oversight over identifying employees as surplus under the PSEA and PSER. [140] The deputy head did not declare the grievor surplus; therefore, she did not have surplus status.

Rajab v. Chief Administrator of the Courts Administration Service - 2024 FPSLREB 181 - 2024-12-23

In the matter of a complaint of abuse of authority - paragraph 77(1)(b) of the Public Service Employment Act Before: Christopher Rootham, a panel of the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board   [...]  This complaint was filed under s. 77(1)(b) of the PSEA, which means the sole issue in the complaint is whether the respondent abused its authority by choosing a non-advertised appointment process.

Parker v. Deputy Head of the Public Service Commission - 2024 FPSLREB 171 - 2024-12-11

[1] The complainant, Nadine Parker, made a complaint to the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board (“the Board”) under ss. 77(1)(a) and (b) of the Public Service Employment Act (S.C. 2003, c. 22, ss. 12, 13; “PSEA”).   [...]  [68] Sections 77(1)(a) and (b) of the PSEA provide as follows: 77 (1) When the Commission has made or proposed an appointment in an internal appointment process, a person in the area of recourse referred to in subsection (2) may — in the manner and within the period provided by the Board’s regulations — make a complaint to   [...]  [77] The complainant argued that the director fettered her discretion by relying on the examination.

Marston v. Deputy Head (Correctional Service of Canada) - 2024 FPSLREB 158 - 2024-11-18

Subsection 62(1) of the PSEA provides that an employer may terminate an employee’s employment during probation at the end of the notice period and that the employee ceases to be an employee at the end of that notice period.   [...]  Subsection 62(2) of the PSEA provides that the employer may also pay the employee monetary compensation equivalent to the value of the notice.   [...]  It is clear that the employer did not comply with the PSEA, but that failure does not confer substantive rights other than the right to obtain payment in lieu of notice, as should have been done from the start.

Munden v. Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police - 2024 FPSLREB 141 - 2024-10-17

She alleged that it abused its authority under ss. 77(1)(a) and (b) of the Public Service Employment Act (S.C. 2003, c. 22, ss. 12, 13; PSEA) in the application of merit and in the choice of a non-advertised appointment process.   [...]  [108] The PSEA provides that an appointee’s qualifications must be assessed before an appointment decision is made.   [...]  The PSEA requires that persons in the area of recourse be notified of appointments made or proposed.

Simard v. Treasury Board (Department of Employment and Social Development) - 2024 FPSLREB 131 - 2024-09-25

Sections 61 and 62 of the PSEA: 61 (1) A person appointed from outside the public service is a probation for a period   [...]  [260] Section 211(a) of the FPSLRA states that any individual grievance with respect to termination of employment under the PSEA cannot be referred to adjudication. The PSEA specifies that while an employee is on probation, the deputy head may notify the employee that his or her employment will be terminated at the end of   [...]   with respect to any termination of employment under the PSEA. [269] Relying on the sections cited above, case law and the termination letter, I conclude that the termination occurred under the PSEA. I must now determine whether the termination of employment was a contrived reliance on the PSEA, a sham or a camouflage.

Choryhanna v. Deputy Head (Department of Natural Resources) - 2024 FPSLREB 117 - 2024-08-20

As for his contention that other employees could have been interested in the position, it does not meet the requirements of s. 77(1) of the PSEA: a person cannot complain that other persons were not, or could have been, appointed in an appointment process.   [...]  The Tribunal finds that the complainant had no standing and therefore no right to file a complaint to the Tribunal pursuant to s. 77 of the PSEA. The request to dismiss the complaint of Mr. Johnston is granted.   [...]  [19] The complainant seeks to raise what he sees as serious concerns regarding the safety of Canadians, however, the issue he raises does not fall within the scope of a staffing complaint under s. 77 of the PSEA. The Board cannot assume jurisdiction over matters outside its mandate.

Desjardins v. Treasury Board (Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development) - 2024 FPSLREB 109 - 2024-08-13

In addition, medical retirement was never approved by the responsible manager, as set out in s. 63 of the PSEA. [71] The grievances are not prescribed, since the grievor acted when she had access to the information that was central to them.   [...]  [72] She also learned only after the grievances were filed that her manager should have approved her medical retirement under s. 63 of the PSEA. In 2021, she asked questions, and no one from the employer could find the letter approving her medical retirement.   [...]  [77] The length of the delay filing the grievances can be explained by the fact that the grievor did not have access to the information.

Harnois v. Deputy Head (Deputy Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities - 2024 FPSLREB 106 - 2024-08-02

In the matter of a complaint of abuse of authority made under s. 77(1)(b) of the Public Service Employment Act Before: Guy Giguère, a panel of the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board   [...]  [1] On January 18, 2017, Stéphanie Harnois (“the complainant”) made a complaint under s. 77 of the Public Service Employment Act (S.C. 2003, c. 22, ss. 12, 13; PSEA) about two appointments involving the advertised appointment process numbered 16‐MOT‐IA-HRS-85093 (“the 2016 process”).   [...]  [77] In this case, although she had the qualification, a candidate was penalized because a referee did not provide details or elaborate and did not use items from the definition.

Chaston v. Deputy Head (Canada Border Services Agency) - 2024 FPSLREB 96 - 2024-07-18

[1] The complainant, Anthony Chaston, made a complaint to the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board (“the Board”) under s. 77(1)(a) of the Public Service Employment Act (S.C. 2003, c. 22, ss. 12, 13; “PSEA”).   [...]  [22] This complaint was made under s. 77(1)(a) of the PSEA. It provides as follows: 77 (1) When the Commission has made or proposed an appointment in an internal appointment process, a person in the area of recourse referred to in subsection (2) may — in the manner and within the period provided by the Board’s regulations —  [...]  [29] As set out in s. 30(2) of the PSEA, an appointed person must meet the essential qualifications established for a position.