Advanced Search

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.

Public Service Alliance of Canada v. Treasury Board (Department of Veterans Affairs) - 2013 PSLRB 165 - 2013-12-20

… Laid-off person (personne mise en disponibilité)-is a person who has been laid-off pursuant to subsection 64(1) of the PSEA and who still retains an appointment priority under subsection 41(4) and section 64 of the PSEA.   [...]  77 The grievor relied on Canada (Attorney General) v. Public Service Alliance of Canada, to support its interpretation of the contract in such a way that the consideration of surplus and laid off employees would go beyond those who were already been declared surplus or laid off.

Nadeau v. Deputy Head (Correctional Service of Canada) - 2017 PSLREB 31 - 2017-04-10

77 On September 11, 2012, a CSC compensation advisor sent the grievor an email, about the new Health Services collective agreement, which dealt with a change to the severance payment provision.   [...]   and Mutart v. Deputy Head (Department of Public Works and Government Services), 2013 PSLRB 90 (upheld in 2014 FC 540), stand for the proposition that once an employee has voluntarily resigned, that action is under the PSEA and not under the Act. 105 During the course of the grievor’s case, discrimination was alluded to.   [...]   under the PSEA without his consent when it was required. While he did not do so, the grievance could have also been referred to adjudication under s. 209(1)(c)(i) of the Act, that addresses termination of employment or a demotion under s. 12(1)(d) of the Financial Administration Act, for unsatisfactory performance.

Mohan v. Canada Customs and Revenue Agency - 2005 PSLRB 172 - 2005-12-07

The grievor’s representative distinguished Bodner (supra) on the basis that the resignation in that case fell under the Public Service Employment Act (PSEA). In Dorion (supra), the matter was not adjudicable. The Gauthier case (supra) was decided under the Canada Labour Code (CLC), and the standard for review of the   [...]  Furthermore, the subject–matter in Veilleux fell under the PSEA. In the alternative, she submitted that the facts were different. In this case, the disciplinary policy clearly sets out who does what.   [...]  [77] Ms. Pylyshyn also submitted that the absolute refusal of the employer to consider alternative dispute resolution was evidence of bad faith.

Tchorzewski v. Treasury Board (Correctional Service of Canada) - 2015 PSLREB 86 - 2015-11-10

77 In cross-examination, the grievor agreed that the bargaining agent had never made any suggestions to her about possible positions and had not identified any positions to the employer.   [...]  172 Counsel for the grievor alluded to the priority system described in section 7 of the Regulations, reproduced earlier in this decision, as well as the other priority regime under section 41 of the PSEA, also discussed earlier. While, as Mr. Gareau’s testimony indicated, no effort was made to apply the latter regime, the   [...]  In argument, her counsel raised the question of whether she was entitled to the broad priority outlined under section 41 of the PSEA based on the fact that she had been replaced in her substantive position.

Frezza v. Deputy Head (Department of National Defence) - 2018 FPSLREB 18 - 2018-03-12

77 The grievor testified about his discussion with Maj. Legacy and the advice he provided about the Blackberry problem.   [...]  Sections 61 and 62 of the PSEA and s. 211 of the Act give the deputy head the authority to reject someone on probation, with which the Board cannot interfere.   [...]  Unless the grievor can demonstrate that the employer’s actions amounted to a sham, a camouflage, bad faith, or a contrived reliance on the PSEA amounting to disguised discipline, the Board has no jurisdiction. 196 With respect to credibility, the employer referred me to Faryna v. Chorny, [1952] 2 DLR 354.

Choinière v. Treasury Board (Department of Fisheries and Oceans) - 2018 FPSLREB 36 - 2018-04-26

28 The employer submitted that the issues raised in the grievor’s grievance and the remedies sought should be dealt with through a staffing complaint under the Public Service Employment Act (S.C. 2003, c. 22, s. 12, 13; PSEA), which sets out a complete recourse procedure for staffing measures in the federal public service.   [...]  77 In a letter dated February 14, 2013, the employer offered Mr. Michaud a transfer to the BI-04 (triage and planning) position (Exhibit S-22).   [...]  She noted that she had priority status under ss. 40 and 41 of the PSEA and s. 5 of the Public Service Employment Regulations (SOR/2005-334).

Raveendran v. Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions - 2009 PSLRB 116 - 2009-09-30

77 The grievor’s representative asked Mr. Schoenberger whether the matrix management system made it excessively difficult for new employees because of competing demands from different managers and other employees.   [...]  122 A probationary period is required by section 61 of the Public Service Employment Act (“the PSEA”) for any employee appointed from outside the federal public service.   [...]  The fact that the grievor had communicated her concerns about the stability of her situation at the OSFI did not place an obligation on the OSFI to waive the probationary period, which it could not do in any case under the PSEA, or to make the probationary period a perfunctory or pro forma exercise.

Finlay v. Deputy Head (Correctional Service of Canada) - 2013 PSLRB 59 - 2013-05-27

As to the deployment without consent, the grievor’s consent was not required under the Public Service Employment Act, S.C. 2002, c. 22, ss. 12, 13 (“the PSEA”). This Board has only limited jurisdiction under paragraph 231(a) of the Public Service Labour Relations Act, S.C. 2002, c.22, s.2 (“the Act”) to review the   [...]  Therefore, his consent was not required, pursuant to section 51(6)(a) of the PSEA. The deployment was made in good faith for reasons of the safety and security of the CSC’s Kent Institution and did not amount to a sham or a camouflage.   [...]  77 When faced with the disciplinary investigation report, Mr. Kemball made the difficult decision to not impose discipline and to declare the findings unfounded, despite evidence supporting the allegations about inmate phone calls.

Larivière v. Treasury Board (Department of Employment and Social Development) - 2019 FPSLREB 73 - 2019-07-12

... [49] The respondent noted that in Appendix A to her first complaint and in her second complaint, the complainant also indicated that its reason was “[translation] to deprive [her] of [her] right to priority appointment and to avoid ... its obligations ... under the Public Service Employment Act (PSEA) and ... section 7   [...]  [77] A review of the third complaint indicates that on February 28, 2019, Sun Life allegedly arbitrarily cut the complainant’s long-term disability benefits in half, which came as a shock to her.

Lemieux v. Deputy Head (Correctional Service of Canada) - 2021 FPSLREB 20 - 2021-03-02

... [77] That same day, Ms. Thibault replied as follows: [Translation] ... Finally, when an employee is suspended without pay, the employer must review the situation every three weeks.   [...]  Section 211 of the Act specifically denies me jurisdiction over any termination of employment under the PSEA. The acceptance of the grievor’s resignation and application for retirement was a function of the deputy head’s authority under section 63 of the PSEA, which is not subject to my review.

Archambault v. Public Service Alliance of Canada - 2003 PSSRB 56 - 2003-07-04

28 of the PSEA, respecting rejection on probation for cause, has application. Upon discharging that initial burden, the burden of proof then shifts to the grievor to demonstrate that the employer's actions are in fact a sham or a camouflage, and therefore not in accordance with section 28 of the PSEA. It is only upon  [...]  [77] According to Ms. Cabana, Mr. Archambault's statements contained contradictions.   [...]  The consultation was held on Friday, December 21, 2001; the notice was sent on January 15, 2002 (Exhibit P-77). [110] On March 21, 2002, Ms. Tranchemontagne wrote to Mr. Archambault (Exhibit P-78).

Zhang v. Treasury Board (Privy Council Office) - 2005 PSLRB 173 - 2005-12-08

Mr. Newman also noted that security assessments and reliability checks are conditions of employment under the Public Service Employment Act (PSEA) and that until required checks are completed individuals cannot be appointed to a position.   [...]  [77] I order the employer to reinstate Ms. Zhang in her leave with pay status effective November 28, 2003, until the employer has completed its search for an alternate position.