Advanced Search

Poulin v. the Deputy Minister of Justice et al. - 2008 PSST 0018 - 2008-07-08

4 On February 25, 2008, the complainant filed a complaint with the Public Service Staffing Tribunal (the Tribunal) under subsection 77(1) of the Public Service Employment Act, S.C. 2003, c. 22, ss. 12 and 13 (the PSEA).

Richard v. Deputy Minister of Public Works and Government Services et al. - 2007 PSST 0002 - 2007-01-24

1 On December 11, 2006, the Public Service Staffing Tribunal (the Tribunal) received a complaint from Ms. Josianne Richard, dated November 28, 2006, under paragraph 77(1)(a) of the Public Service Employment Act, S.C. 2003, c. 22, ss. 12 and 13 (the PSEA).

Burlacu v. Treasury Board (Canada Border Services Agency) - 2022 FPSLREB 51 - 2022-06-22

[77] Other disputes that can arise under Part II of the Code in respect of the federal public service are not within the Board’s mandate.   [...]  [125] For similar conclusions, see also Vanegas, at para. 77, Nash, at para. 86, Sousa-Dias, at para. 130, and Pezze, at para. 42.   [...]  Mr. Burlacu suggested that such a change might be in violation of his appointment under the PSEA, but that has no bearing on the issue before me, which is whether the threat of discipline was because Mr. Burlacu was acting in accordance with, or in furtherance of, Part II of the Code.

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.

Horac v. Public Service Alliance of Canada - 2023 FPSLREB 1 - 2023-01-03

[77] The complainant cited Manella v. Public Service Alliance of Canada, 2022 FPSLREB 7, and Cowman v. Treasury Board (Department of Transport), 2021 FPSLREB 36.   [...]   “PSEA”) and not the Act, there was no duty to represent. [83] In Abeysuriya v. Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada, 2015 PSLREB 26, following the reasoning in Brown v. Union of Solicitor General Employees, 2013 PSLRB 48, the Board’s predecessor found that since it had no jurisdiction under the PSEA to

McEwan v. Deputy Head (Immigration and Refugee Board) - 2015 PSLREB 53 - 2015-06-11

The focus of his investigation was the alleged Code violations, while the PSC focused on alleged PSEA violations. The investigations were based on the same facts, but their contexts were different.   [...]  Mr. Gascon expected his directors to focus on respecting PSEA hiring rules. This message was repeated at staff and directors' meetings.   [...]  77 Ms. McEwan served on the Savoy Society board of directors with Dr. Forster and Ms. Cochrane.

Hughes v. Department of Human Resources and Skills Development - 2012 PSLRB 2 - 2012-01-05

77 In Forward-Arias, the complainant argued that her medical situation prevented her from acting on a violation of the PSLRA that occurred several years earlier.   [...]  259 In reply, Ms. Delgaty clarified that, when the PSEA came into force, it was not common for a hiring manager and HR to discuss the statement-of-merit criteria and the staffing pool.   [...]  Now that the managers and HR have more experience with the PSEA, they consult more often. However, the bottom line under the PSEA is that the selection is governed by how a given candidate rated on the competencies and whether he or she would be the best fit for the position.

Bahniuk v. Canada Revenue Agency - 2014 PSLRB 73 - 2014-07-25

45 The employer quite properly highlighted that the report examined only retirements among permanent employees who occupied positions governed by the Public Service Employment Act (PSEA), thus excluding employees of separate agencies such as the employer, Crown corporations, the Canadian Armed Forces and the Royal Canadian   [...]  77,638.85 55 The employer stated that it did not support this approach for two reasons: first, the deduction for contingencies requires a large degree of speculation that requires the adjudicator to "reverse crystal-ball gaze".   [...]  77 At paragraph 2:1507 of Brown & Beatty, the authors state the following: "It is now commonplace for arbitrators to structure damage awards to compensate for the loss of value of employment within a bargaining unit where reinstatement is not warranted."

Berglund v. Deputy Minister of National Defence et al. - 2007 PSST 0034 - 2007-07-30

On April 11, 2007, he filed a complaint under subsection 77 (1) of the Public Service Employment Act, SC 2003, ss. 12, 13 (the PSEA) claiming that he felt the staffing process was handled unfairly.

Chaudhry v. Treasury Board (Correctional Service of Canada) - 2005 PSLRB 72 - 2005-07-13

The evidence clearly demonstrates that this was a rejection on probation pursuant to section 28 of the Public Service Employment Act (PSEA ). There was a well-defined employment‑related reason for the rejection on probation.   [...]  […] [77] Mr. Fisher submitted that the steps in the Treasury Board policy do not say fire him and then meet the obligation.   [...]  Rejection on probation is governed by section 28 of the PSEA . There is no dispute that Mr. Chaudhry was on probation and that the rejection on probation memorandum was received during his probationary period.

Dhaliwal v. Treasury Board (Solicitor General Canada - Correctional Service) - 2004 PSSRB 109 - 2004-08-06

However, as I see it, the adjudicator required only that the employer demonstrate the rejection was for an employment-related reasons, i.e. a dissatisfaction with the suitability of the employee and, as such, was acting in accordance with the provisions of the PSEA... [70] In Penner (supra), the Federal Court of Appeal   [...]  [77] In Penner (supra), Justice Marceau, speaking for the Court, reviewed in detail the several reasons for the judgment in Jacmain [1978] 2 S.C.R. 15, and concluded as follows, at page 219:   [...]  [98] Given my decision, I will not comment on the Grievor's allegation that the rejection or probation was untimely, as the Employer did not meet the 30-day notice requirement, under the PSEA. [99] I will remain seized of this matter for a period of 30 days in the event that the parties encounter any difficulties in the

Mugabarabona v. Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police - 2018 FPSLREB 51 - 2018-06-12

In the matter of a complaint of abuse of authority - paragraph 77(1)(a) of the Public Service Employment Act Before: Nathalie Daigle, a panel of the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board   [...]   Labour Relations Board (PSLRB) and was responsible for dealing with complaints filed under the Public Service Employment Act (S.C. 2003, c. 22, s. 12, 13; PSEA). 7 On June 19, 2017, An Act to amend the Public Service Labour Relations Act, the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and other Acts and

Sved v. Deputy Head (National Parole Board), Harvey Cenaiko and Yves Bellefeuille - 2012 PSLRB 16 - 2012-02-13

77 The grievor responded as follows to examples of serious errors in contracts and finance.   [...]  120 Subsection 62(1) of the Public Service Employment Act, S.C. 2003, c. 22, ss. 12, 13 (“the PSEA”) stipulates as follows that a deputy head may reject an employee at any time while on probation:   [...]  … 121 Even though section 209 of the PSLRA provides for the referral of a termination grievance to adjudication under the circumstances that it details, section 211 excludes from adjudication a termination under the PSEA and, notably, a rejection on probation. 122 An adjudicator’s jurisdiction is limited to verifying that