Advanced Search

Poff v. Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs - 2021 FPSLREB 108 - 2021-09-16

[44] Section 77(1) of the Public Service Employment Act (S.C. 2003, c. 22, ss. 12 and 13; PSEA) provides that a person in the area of recourse may make a complaint to the Board that he or she was not appointed or proposed for appointment because the PSC or the deputy head abused its authority in the appointment process.   [...]  [45] Pursuant to s. 77(1)(a), the complainant alleged that the respondent abused its authority in the application of merit.   [...]  [77] The respondent submitted that it is not mandatory to inform candidates of the complete details of how a particular qualification will be assessed.

Melanson v. Deputy Head (Correctional Service of Canada) - 2009 PSLRB 33 - 2009-03-16

77 The grievor explained that he was not present at the incident where inmate B assaulted correctional officer “O.T.” on June 20, 2006.   [...]  Paragraph 61(1)(a) of the PSEA provides that the probation period is the period set out in the TB’s regulations.   [...]  103 The respondent’s representative pointed out that paragraph 211(a) of the PSLRA provides that an employee cannot refer to adjudication an individual grievance relating to any termination of employment under the PSEA. The grievor was rejected on probation in accordance with paragraph 62(1)(a) of the PSEA. In rejection on

Smith v. Commissioner of the Correctional Service of Canada et al. - 2006 PSST 0013 - 2006-11-20

1 The complainant seeks an order from the Public Service Staffing Tribunal (the Tribunal) for the provision of information related to a complaint filed pursuant to subsection 77(1) of the Public Service Employment Act, S.C. 2003, c. 22, ss. 12, 13 (the PSEA).

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.

Dargis v. Canada Revenue Agency - 2022 FPSLREB 20 - 2022-03-28

[77] On June 15, 2015, the grievor visited Ms. St-Louis, to discuss her work struggles.   [...]  Section 211 provides that terminations under the Public Service Employment Act (S.C. 2003, c. 22, ss. 12, 13; “PSEA”), including terminations during the probationary period (ss. 61 and 62 of the PSEA), may not be referred to the Board for adjudication.   [...]  [203] No provisions similar to s. 61 of the PSEA and s. 211 of the FPSLRA apply to the Agency. It is known that ss. 12(2) and (3) and s. 12.1 of the Financial Administration Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. F-11; “FAA”) require that terminations by the Agency be with cause.

Sharma v. Chief Public Health Officer of the Public Health Agency of Canada - 2011 PSST 0027 - 2011-10-04

Complaint of abuse of authority pursuant to section 77(1)(a) of the Public Service Employment Act Decision: The complaint is dismissed   [...]  As such, section 99(1)(d) of the PSEA empowers the Tribunal to "accept any evidence, whether admissible in a court of law or not."

Swannie v. Chief Commissioner of the Canadian Grain Commission - 2013 PSST 36 - 2013-12-23

1On November 7, 2013, the Tribunal received three complaints from the complainant under s. 77 of the Public Service Employment Act, S.C. 2003, c. 22, ss. 12, 13 (the PSEA).

Tipple v. Deputy Head (Department of Public Works and Government Services) - 2010 PSLRB 83 - 2010-07-16

Counsel for the respondent objected that Mr. Tipple had been laid off under subsection 64(1) of the Public Service Employment Act (PSEA)and that paragraph 211(a) of the Public Service Labour Relations Act (PSLRA) prohibits a referral to adjudication for a termination of employment under the PSEA. Therefore, according, to   [...]   of the abolishment of a position by a contrived reliance on the PSEA. Counsel for the respondent argued before me that, for Mr. Tipple to succeed, he must prove that the conditions required to lay him off were not present at the relevant time and that therefore the employment cannot have been terminated under the PSEA.   [...]   under subsection 64(1) of the PSEA were not present at the relevant time and that therefore his employment cannot have been terminated under the PSEA. Therefore, I dismiss the respondent’s claim that Mr. Tipple was laid off under subsection 64(1) of the PSEA and its objection to an adjudicator’s jurisdiction in this case.

Casper v. Deputy Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Canada et al. - 2006 PSST 0010 - 2006-10-24

1 On September 13, 2006, Jodi-Leah Casper, the complainant, filedtwo complaints with the Public Service Staffing Tribunal (the Tribunal) pursuant to subsection 77(1) of the Public Service Employment Act, S.C. 2003, c. 22, ss. 12, 13 (the PSEA).

Hamel v. Parks Canada Agency - 2022 FPSLREB 61 - 2022-07-28

Subsection 24(1) of the PSEA permits delegation of this authority. 2. Target Audience and Purpose   [...]  [77] Counsel for the grievor brought Mr. Lessard to the TB Directive on Performance Management and asked him if he was familiar with it.   [...]  [143] In this case, the parties argued the matter as if both the PSEA and s. 211 of the Act applied; however, the PSEA is not applicable to Parks Canada, and as such, s. 211 of the Act is irrelevant.

Treasury Board v. Association of Justice Counsel - 2020 FPSLREB 3 - 2020-01-09

[9] They also advise on legislative initiatives that will affect federal public sector employers (for example, with respect to amendments to the Act, the Public Service Employment Act (S.C. 2003, c. 22, ss. 12, 13; PSEA), and the CLC). They also advise Canadian Armed Forces members on interpreting and applying the Official   [...]  As such, the meaning of “labour relations” must extend to the subject matter relating to employer and employee relations included not only in the Act but also in the Financial Administration Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. F-11), the PSEA, and other statutes that affect employment-related matters. [21] According to the employer, it   [...]  [77] For all of the above reasons, the Board makes the following order: (The Order appears on the next page)

Boiko v. National Research Council of Canada - 2018 FPSLREB 11 - 2018-02-07

694 The employer objected to me hearing and determining this matter, stating that it falls under s. 28(2) of the PSEA that was in effect when the termination occurred (in 2004; “the former PSEA”) and s. 92(3) of the PSSRA.   [...]  696 The PSMA also made significant changes to the former PSEA. On December 31, 2005, the current PSEA, enacted by s. 12 of the PSMA, came into effect, replacing the former PSEA. Before December 30, 2005, the rejection on probation provision was as follows:   [...]  Terminations of employment that are made under the PSEA, either the version in effect currently or the former PSEA, could not be referred to adjudication under either the PSSRA or the PSLRA. The significant difference between the former PSEA and the current PSEA is the removal of the phrase “for cause”, which modifies the

Gariépy v. Deputy Head (Department of National Defence) - 2020 FPSLREB 103 - 2020-11-19

[77] According to the grievor, Ms. Aubin called him between November 26 and 28, 2013.   [...]  Had the Board found the complaint justified, it could have set aside the layoff (s. 65(4) of the PSEA). The legislator provided recourse in the PSEA for laid-off employees.   [...]  According to the employer, the PSEA does not provide for such a possibility. The grievor did not convince me otherwise.