Advanced Search

Syntax: "", OR, AND, EXACT(), /p, /s, /n
(YYYY or YYYY-MM or YYYY-MM-DD)
English or French
Sort by: Relevance Date

570 result(s)

  • 101.

    Agnaou v. Deputy Minister of Justice - 2012 PSST 0016 - 2012-06-18

    FPSLREB Decisions - Staffing Complaints

    41 According to the terms of section 80 of the PSEA, in considering whether a complaint under section 77 is substantiated, the Tribunal may interpret and apply the CHRA.   [...]  87 However, this does not mean that EE issues are not relevant in the context of complaints made under section 77 of the PSEA. Section 77(1)(a) gives the Tribunal the right to determine whether the deputy head abused his or her authority in the exercise of his or her authority under section 30(2).   [...]  89 Therefore, certain EE aspects are relevant in the case of a complaint made under section 77 of the PSEA, but this does not mean that the Tribunal has a general mandate to monitor the application of the EEA.

  • 102.

    Brown v. Deputy Minister of National Defence - 2010 PSST 0012 - 2010-08-13

    FPSLREB Decisions - Staffing Complaints

    61The complainant also argued that the respondent waited until the PSEA came into force to deploy Ms. McGuinness to the PG-03 position in order to avoid recourse rights provided for in the former PSEA. No evidence was provided to support the complainants’ allegation.   [...]  Section 14(1) of the Public Service Employment Regulations, SOR/2005-334 (the PSER) provides that acting appointments of less than four months are not subject to section 77 of the PSEA. In such a case, the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction.   [...]  68The PSEA specifically allows a delegated manager the flexibility to staff a position through a non-advertised process.

  • 103.

    Rochon v. Deputy Minister of Fisheries and Oceans - 2011 PSST 0007 - 2011-02-10

    FPSLREB Decisions - Staffing Complaints

    12 On April 3, 2009, the complainant filed his complaint of abuse of authority under s. 77(1) of the Public Service Employment Act, S.C. 2003, c. 22, ss. 12 and 13 (the PSEA).   [...]  These are serious errors and omissions that constitute abuse of authority under s. 77(1) of the PSEA. Issue II: Did the respondent demonstrate favouritism towards the successful candidate?   [...]  91 Under s. 81(1) of the PSEA, if the Tribunal finds that a complaint under s. 77 is substantiated, it may order the deputy head to revoke the appointment or not make the appointment, as the case may be.

  • 104.

    Bérubé-Savoie v. The Deputy Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development Canada - 2013 PSST 2 - 2013-01-22

    FPSLREB Decisions - Staffing Complaints

    Complaints of abuse of authority pursuant to section 77(1)(a) and 77(1)(b) of the Public Service Employment Act Decision: The complaints are dismissed   [...]  11 On June 17, 2010, the complainant filed two complaints pursuant to ss. 77(1)(a) and 77(1)(b) of the Public Service Employment Act, S.C. 2003, c. 33, ss. 12 and 13 (the PSEA), in relation to these acting appointments.   [...]  23 For a complaint under s. 77(1)(b) of the PSEA to be successful, the complainant must establish, on a balance of probabilities, that the choice to use a non-advertised process was an abuse of authority.

  • 105.

    Steindl v. Deputy Minister of Health Canada - 2010 PSST 0024 - 2010-12-22

    FPSLREB Decisions - Staffing Complaints

    The complainant filed three complaints with the Tribunal, alleging abuse of authority in the application of merit, pursuant to section 77(1)(a) of the Public Service Employment Act (the PSEA). These complaints were consolidated by the Tribunal.   [...]  10 Under section 88(2) of the PSEA, the Tribunal’s mandate with respect to internal appointment processes is to consider and dispose of complaints made under section 77 of the PSEA. Section 77 of the PSEA provides that an employee may bring a complaint to the Tribunal that he or she was not appointed because of abuse of   [...]  26 In these circumstances, the Tribunal finds that the complainant has not established an abuse of authority within the meaning of section 77(1)(a) of the PSEA. Decision 27 For these reasons, the complaint is dismissed.

  • 106.

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

    FPSLREB Decisions - Staffing Complaints
    Choice of process
    Definition of abuse of authority
    Non-advertised process

    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.

  • 107.

    Jarvo v. Deputy Minister of National Defence - 2011 PSST 0006 - 2011-02-09

    FPSLREB Decisions - Staffing Complaints

    5 The complainants filed complaints of abuse of authority with the Public Service Staffing Tribunal (the Tribunal) under s. 77 of the Public Service Employment Act, S.C. 2003, c. 22, ss. 12, 13 (the PSEA).   [...]  Nevertheless, s. 77(1)(b) of the PSEA provides for a direct challenge of the discretionary choice between an advertised and non-advertised process, on the ground of abuse of authority.   [...]  For a complaint under s. 77(1)(b) of the PSEA to be successful, the complainant must establish, on a balance of probabilities, that the choice to use a non-advertised process was an abuse of authority.

  • 108.

    Blanco v. President of the Canadian International Development Agency et al. - 2009 PSST 0004 - 2009-02-17

    FPSLREB Decisions - Staffing Complaints

    11 The complaint was filed on June 29, 2007 pursuant to paragraph 77(1)(a) of the PSEA. Issue 12 The Tribunal must determine the following issue:   [...]  The respondent refers to Tibbs, where the Tribunal stated that the old system of relative merit under the former PSEA no longer exists and that managers now have a broad discretion pursuant to subsection 30(2) of the PSEA to choose the person who is the right fit for the position.   [...]  43 The complaint was filed pursuant to paragraph 77(1)(a) of the PSEA: 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 Tribunal’s regulations – make a

  • 109.

    Turner v. Deputy Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Canada et al. - 2009 PSST 0022 - 2009-07-10

    FPSLREB Decisions - Staffing Complaints

    77The following provisions of the PSEA are relevant: 2. (4) For greater certainty, a reference in this Act to abuse of authority shall be construed as including bad faith and personal favouritism.   [...]  [69] ... Under subsection 29(3) of the PSEA, the PSC may establish policies respecting the manner of making appointments.   [...]  [126] The recourse available for those concerned that the exercise of discretion in choosing between an advertised and a non-advertised process did not respect fair and transparent employment practices is a complaint of abuse of authority under paragraph 77(1)(b) of the PSEA. 91The importance of the written rationale cannot

  • 110.

    Parsons and Carey v. Deputy Head of Service Canada et al. - 2006 PSST 0004 - 2006-08-23

    FPSLREB Decisions - Staffing Complaints

    1 On July 12, 2006, Phyllis Parsons and Marilyn Carey filed 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, s. 12, 13 (the PSEA) concerning acting appointments made following an advertised developmental opportunity as   [...]   PSER), the four acting appointments made in this case were for a period of less than four months, and therefore, are excluded from the application of sections 30 (merit) and 77 (recourse) of the PSEA. In support, the deputy head’s representative filed with the Tribunal four documents entitled “Subject - Initial Acting”.   [...]  11 Section 14 of the PSER specifically excludes acting appointments of less than four months from the application of section 77 of the PSEA, the section which sets out the right to complain to the Tribunal.

  • 111.

    Chiasson v. Deputy Minister of Canadian Heritage et al. - 2008 PSST 0027 - 2008-10-22

    FPSLREB Decisions - Staffing Complaints

    1 The complainant, Linda Chiasson, 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).   [...]  32 The complaint was filed under paragraph 77(1)(a) of the PSEA: 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 Tribunal’s regulations — make a   [...]  35 Abuse of authority is not defined in the PSEA.However, subsection 2(4) of the PSEA does provide certain indications.

  • 112.

    Boulanger v. Commissioner of the Correctional Service of Canada et al. - 2008 PSST 0031 - 2008-12-04

    FPSLREB Decisions - Staffing Complaints

    2 The complainant filed a complaint under section 77 of the Public Service Employment Act, S.C. 2003, c. 22, ss. 12 and 13 (the PSEA) and alleges that the respondent, the Commissioner of the Correctional Service of Canada, abused its authority in establishing and applying the language requirements for the position.   [...]  39 On March 7, 2007, the complainant filed his complaint with the Tribunal under paragraph 77(1)(a) of the PSEA: 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   [...]  […] 40 Under paragraph 77(1)(a) and subsection 30(2) of the PSEA, the Tribunal can examine the allegations relating to the establishment of essential qualifications.

  • 113.

    Boutzouvis v. the Director of Public Prosecution Service of Canada - 2012 PSST 0025 - 2012-09-26

    FPSLREB Decisions - Staffing Complaints

    9 On April 15, 2010, the complainant brought a complaint of abuse of authority pursuant to s. 77(1)(a) and (b) of the Public Service Employment Act, S.C. 2003, c. 22, ss. 12 and 13 (PSEA) to the Tribunal.   [...]  12 Section 77(1) of the PSEA provides that a person in the area of recourse may make a complaint to the Tribunal 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.   [...]  The scheme of the PSEA, as set out in ss. 29 and 77(1), is that when there is a vacancy and the organization decides to fill that vacancy, a person may make a complaint that that person was not chosen because of an abuse of authority.

  • 114.

    Ewing v. the Commissioner of the Correctional Service of Canada - 2013 PSST 4 - 2013-02-04

    FPSLREB Decisions - Staffing Complaints

    10 Section 77(1) of the PSEA provides that a person in the area of recourse may make a complaint to the Tribunal 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.   [...]  Nevertheless, s. 77(1)(b) of the PSEA provides for a direct challenge of the discretionary choice between an advertised and non-advertised process, on the ground of abuse of authority.   [...]  For a complaint under s. 77(1)(b) of the PSEA to be successful, the complainant must establish, on a balance of probabilities, that the choice to use a non-advertised process was an abuse of authority.

  • 115.

    Jack v. Commissioner of the Correctional Service of Canada - 2011 PSST 0026 - 2011-09-22

    FPSLREB Decisions - Staffing Complaints

    5 On August 19, 2010, the complainant filed a complaint with the Tribunal under s. 77(1)(b) of the Public Service Employment Act, S.C. 2003, c. 22, ss. 12,13 (the PSEA), alleging an abuse of authority in the choice of a non-advertised appointment process.   [...]  Nevertheless, s. 77(1)(b) of the PSEA provides for a direct challenge of the discretionary choice between an advertised and non-advertised process, on the ground of abuse of authority.   [...]  For a complaint under s. 77(1)(b) of the PSEA to be successful, the complainant must establish, on a balance of probabilities, that the choice to use a non-advertised process was an abuse of authority.

  • 116.

    Rozka et al. v. Deputy Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Canada et al. - 2007 PSST 0046 - 2007-12-10

    FPSLREB Decisions - Staffing Complaints

    2 Michelle Rozka, Denise Durie, Peggy Bienvenue, Cheryl Harris, Caren Bilyk and Kathy O’Neill, the complainants, filed similar 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).   [...]  This appointment process was the corrective action taken by management as a result of a previous appeal under the former PSEA. There were concerns that management might change the process since the new PSEA had come into force in the interim.   [...]  58 The first ground on which the complainants rely is found in paragraph 77(1)(b) of the PSEA, which reads 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

  • 117.

    Soccar v. the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police - 2013 PSST 0014 - 2013-05-10

    FPSLREB Decisions - Staffing Complaints

    The complainant nevertheless filed a complaint of abuse of authority on August 17, 2011, pursuant to s. 77 of the Public Service Employment Act, S.C. 2003, c. 22, ss. 12 and 13 (PSEA) (file 2011-0908).   [...]  21 Section 77(1) of the PSEA states that a person in the area of recourse may make a complaint that he or she was not appointed or proposed for appointment by reason of an abuse of authority by the PSC or the deputy head in the appointment process.   [...]  77 The complainant submits that Ms. Silva is not the sole author of that document.

  • 118.

    Campbell v. Deputy Minister of National Defence et al. - 2006 PSST 0011 - 2006-11-02

    FPSLREB Decisions - Staffing Complaints

    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).   [...]  The respondent states that those two appointments were made under section 40 of the PSEA, namely, priorities – surplus employees. Thus, the respondent submits that, in accordance with section 87 of the PSEA, no complaint may be made under section 77 of the PSEA in respect of an appointment made under section 40 of the PSEA.  [...]  22 The scope of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction is clearly stated in subsection 88(2) of the PSEA. Subsection 88(2) reads as follows: 88. (2) The mandate of the Tribunal is to consider and dispose of complaints made under subsection 65(1) and sections 74, 77 and 83.

  • 119.

    Stroz-Breton v. the Deputy Minister of National Defence - 2013 PSST 0013 - 2013-04-25

    FPSLREB Decisions - Staffing Complaints

    10 On November 2, 2011, the complainant filed her complaint of abuse of authority with the Public Service Staffing Tribunal (the Tribunal) under s. 77 of the Public Service Employment Act, S.C. 2003, c. 22,ss. 12,13 (PSEA).   [...]  Nevertheless, s. 77(1)(b) of the PSEA provides for a direct challenge of the discretionary choice between an advertised and non-advertised process, on the ground of abuse of authority.   [...]  For a complaint under s. 77(1)(b) of the PSEA to be successful, the complainant must establish, on a balance of probabilities, that the choice to use a non-advertised process was an abuse of authority.

  • 120.

    Hunter v. Deputy Minister of Industry - 2019 FPSLREB 83 - 2019-08-23

    FPSLREB Decisions - Staffing Complaints
    Abuse of authority

    He alleged abuse of authority in the application of merit by the respondent showing personal favouritism toward the appointee under s. 77(1)(a) of the PSEA and abuse of authority in the choice between an advertised and non-advertised appointment process under s. 77(1)(b).   [...]  Clearly, this undermined the transparency of the appointment process, and it appears designed to frustrate even those who file complaints under s. 77(1)(b) of the PSEA, not to mention those who engage only as far as an informal discussion.   [...]  it reconciles with the goal of “staffing integrity” in that policy or the principles of fairness and transparency in the PSEA. [92] Such a position effectively renders meaningless s. 77(1)(b) of the PSEA, which allows for complaints to be made about the choice between an advertised and a non-advertised appointment process.

  • 121.

    Chung v. Deputy Head (Department of National Defence) - 2024 FPSLREB 133 - 2024-09-27

    FPSLREB Decisions - Staffing Complaints

    [1] On July 4, 2021, Jin Gur Chung (“the complainant”) 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).   [...]  The complainant alleged that an abuse of authority occurred in both the application of merit (under s. 77(1)(a) of the PSEA) and in the choice of a non-advertised process to make the appointment (under s. 77(1)(b)).   [...]  [113] As already noted, I find that the complainant did not substantiate his allegation that the appointment was made without merit, under s. 77(1(a) of the PSEA. [114] For all of the above reasons, the Board makes the following order:

  • 122.

    Bain v. Deputy Minister of Natural Resources - 2011 PSST 0028 - 2011-10-14

    FPSLREB Decisions - Staffing Complaints

    18 On January 13, 2009, the complainant filed a complaint with the Tribunal, pursuant to s. 77(1)(a) of the Public Service Employment Act, S.C. 2003, c. 22, ss. 12 and 13 (the PSEA).   [...]  1. Did the manner in which the selection board assessed the appointee's presentation constitute abuse of authority under section 77 of the PSEA? 2. Did the respondent abuse its authority by reason of personal favouritism towards the appointee?   [...]  20 This complaint was filed under s. 77(1)(a) of the PSEA, which reads 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 Tribunal's regulations

  • 123.

    Haarsma v. the Deputy Minister of National Defence - 2013 PSST 5 - 2013-03-01

    FPSLREB Decisions - Staffing Complaints

    On November 22, 2011, the complainant filed a complaint of abuse of authority with the Public Service Staffing Tribunal (the Tribunal) under s. 77 of the PSEA concerning the appointment. Issues 11 The Tribunal must determine the following issues:   [...]  12 Section 77(1) of the PSEA provides that a person in the area of recourse may make a complaint to the Tribunal that he or she was not appointed or proposed for appointment because of abuse of authority.   [...]  32 Section 80 of the PSEA provides that in considering whether a complaint is substantiated under s. 77, the Tribunal may interpret and apply the CHRA.

  • 124.

    Beyak v. Deputy Minister of Natural Resources Canada et al. - 2009 PSST 0034 - 2009-12-18

    FPSLREB Decisions - Staffing Complaints

    190 The Tribunal has broad corrective powers under subsection 81(1) and section 82 of the PSEA when it finds that a complaint under section 77 is substantiated. The Tribunal may order the respondent to revoke the appointment or not make the proposed appointment.   [...]  Subsection 81(1) and section 82 of the PSEA read as follows: 81. (1) If the Tribunal finds a complaint under section 77 to be substantiated, the Tribunal may order the Commission or the deputy head to revoke the appointment or not to make the appointment, as the case may be, and to take any corrective action that the   [...]  196 Mr. Hynes has testified that he had limited training in the PSEA and relied on the advice of Human Resource Advisors. At a minimum, he should receive training that is appropriate for someone delegated to exercise staffing authority under the PSEA. The Tribunal recommends that, unless such training is completed and an

  • 125.

    Abi-Mansour v. Deputy Minister of Fisheries and Oceans - 2021 FPSLREB 3 - 2021-01-22

    FPSLREB Decisions - Staffing Complaints
    Abuse of authority
    Complaint
    Discrimination
    Staffing action

    A. The constitutionality of the PSEA complaint process; “standard of review” [6] The complainant argued that an employee’s right to seek redress via a complaint under s. 77 of the PSEA is in lieu of the constitutional right to judicially review a deputy head’s decision.   [...]  B. Abuse of authority under the PSEA [12] Section 77(1) of the PSEA provides that an unsuccessful candidate in the area of selection for an internal appointment process may complain to the Board that he or she was not appointed because of an abuse of authority.   [...]  [98] Pursuant to s. 80 of the PSEA, the Board may interpret and apply the CHRA in its analysis of a complaint of abuse of authority under s. 77.