Advanced Search

Séguin v. House of Commons - 2001 PSSRB 37 - 2001-04-24

the grievor had been working for three years in the Maintenance Service Support Unit of the House of Commons when the employer terminated his employment - the reasons alleged in support of the termination were that, at a Christmas party, the grievor intimidated co-workers and supervisors, assaulted a supervisor and forced

Marta v. Treasury Board (Royal Canadian Mounted Police) - 2001 PSSRB 31 - 2001-03-29

The reason for the discrepancy is the matter you and I recently discussed, during which I advised you that the best interests of the employee AND the employer must continually be met.   [...]  He believes that the employer did not issue a new contract for disciplinary reasons.   [...]  He believes that he was dismissed for disciplinary reasons because the Self–Evaluation Follow-up (Exhibit G–10) prepared by his supervisor on June 17, 1999 was positive.

Machnee v. Klaponski, Shewel, Legal, Yarema and Vollmershausen - 2001 PSSRB 28 - 2001-03-19

the events on which they are based - the Board found that the complainant, as a steward with his bargaining agent, ought to have known of the complaint process under the PSSRA - the Board further found that the complainant failed to act in a diligent manner and did not file his complaint in a reasonable time frame.

Chopra v. Treasury Board (Health Canada) - 2001 PSSRB 23 - 2001-03-12

that "in respect of the first year of compliance with the Tribunal Order, NCARR is satisfied that Health Canada has made a serious effort and has achieved reasonable progress" - on March 19, 1998, Health Canada organized a forum on employment equity where the grievor expressed the opinion that "nothing was happening" at

Godin v. Public Service Alliance of Canada (Union of Solicitor General Employees) - 2001 PSSRB 16 - 2001-02-22

. . . Reasons for Decision [15] In the case at hand, the issue before the Board is whether it should exercise its powers pursuant to section 8 of the Regulations to dismiss Mr. Godin's complaint for want of jurisdiction.   [...]  He made no submissions in this regard and I see no reason to depart from the line of reasoning in those cases.   [...]  [22] For these reasons, the Alliance's application is allowed. Mr. Godin's complaint is hereby dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Public Service Alliance of Canada v. Canadian Food Inspection Agency - 2001 PSSRB 3 - 2001-01-22

Furthermore, the employer is to make every reasonable effort to obtain any Forms 13 that have been so distributed.

Public Service Alliance of Canada v. Treasury Board - 2000 PSSRB 112 - 2000-12-13

Furthermore, the employer is to make every reasonable effort to obtain any Forms 13 that have been so distributed.

Union of Canadian Correctional Officers - CSN v. Treasury Board (Correctional Service Canada) and Public Service Alliance of Canada - 2000 PSSRB 106 - 2000-11-28

REASONS FOR DECISION [21] Having examined the material submitted in support of its applications, the Board finds, as indicated in its letter of November 2 to the parties, that the UCCO–CSN is an employee organization within the meaning of the definition contained in section 2 of the PSSRA. Furthermore, the Board is

Treasury Board v. Public Service Alliance of Canada - 2000 PSSRB 103 - 2000-11-09

[6] The witness expanded on the reasons already given by the employer to justify its inability to meet the statutory 90 day implementation period for the Operational Services collective agreement.   [...]  Reasons for decision [20] Slightly more than one year ago, the employer appeared before the Board to request an extension of the ninety-day limit contained in section 57 of the PSSRA for the implementation of the previous Operational Services collective agreement (see Board files 148-2-367 and 151-2-13 and 14).   [...]  It seems clear to me that this should, at the very least, be done in those cases where there is ample reason to believe that the 90 days provided by the PSSRA for the implementation of a collective agreement will not be enough.

Kerswill v. Treasury Board (Natural Resources Canada) - 2000 PSSRB 91 - 2000-10-17

Reasons for Decision [20] The grievor claims the employer has violated clause 20.01 of the collective agreement for the Applied Science and Engineering Group with an expiry date of September 30, 1999.

Treasury Board (Department of National Defence) v. Public Service Alliance of Canada - 2000 PSSRB 85 - 2000-09-20

5.1(1)(d) . a position the occupant of which has duties and responsibilities not otherwise described in this subsection and who in the opinion of the Board should not be included in a bargaining unit for reasons of conflict of interest or by reason of the person's duties and responsibilities to the employer;   [...]  [13] In the alternative this position should be excluded under paragraph 5.1(1)(d) of the PSSRA by reason of conflict of interest which will inevitably arise in the execution of its functions.   [...]  [23] Furthermore, given the nature of the functions performed by the occupant of the position in the areas of collective bargaining, grievances and classification, I find that the position should not be included in a bargaining unit for reasons of conflict of interest which in this case would be both apparent and real.

Dickins v. Treasury Board (Solicitor General Canada - Correctional Service) - 2000 PSSRB 67 - 2000-07-20

to leave her post despite the supervisor's order to that effect as, once she had complied with his order to release the prisoners, there was no longer any reason for her to leave her post - with respect to the grievor's actions on March 27 in leaving her post and the institution although she had not been officially

Richard v. Public Service Alliance of Canada - 2000 PSSRB 61 - 2000-06-27

[22] The complainant felt that whether the grievance would succeed or not at adjudication was not a sufficient reason to deny him representation and he therefore lodged the instant complaint.   [...]  Reasons for Decision [35] Paragraph 23(1)(a) and subsection 10(2) of the PSSRA apply in this case, and they read as follows: