Cairns et al. v. Treasury Board (Department of Citizenship and Immigration)

2006 PSLRB 130

  • Before: D.R. Quigley
  • Decision Rendered: 2006-11-24
  • Original Language: English

Subject terms:

Acting pay – Positions reclassified upward – Whether classification or remuneration grievance – Statement of duties – Onus of proof – Application of doctrine in Coallier

The grievors’ positions were reclassified from PM-01 to PM-02 as a result of the restructuring of the Collection Services Unit and the proclamation of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) on June 28, 2002 – the reclassification was made effective as of March 12, 2002 – the employer argued that, as a result, the collection officer positions were given broader legislative and legal authorities and required increased knowledge and decision making – the grievors maintained that their duties remained the same after the IRPA was introduced and that the retroactive date should have been set as January 1, 2000, although no evidence was adduced regarding the significance of that date – the employer objected to the jurisdiction of the adjudicator to hear the grievances, arguing that they were classification grievances – according to section 7 of the Public Service Staff Relations Act, the employer has exclusive jurisdiction over classification matters – the grievors argued that the grievances concerned acting pay, compensation and the collective agreement article granting employees the right to a complete and current statement of duties – the adjudicator held that the new job description for the PM-02 position differed from the former one and that the IRPA gave the grievors increased responsibilities – the onus was on the grievors to prove that they had performed the new PM-02 duties since January 1, 2000, but the evidence disclosed that the new duties were only assigned to them after the IRPA was proclaimed – the grievors did not file their grievance in a timely manner – the adjudicator held that applying the decision of the Federal Court of Appeal in Coallier precluded the grievors from receiving remuneration retroactive to the date they claimed – given that decision, the adjudicator found it unnecessary to determine whether the grievances concerned classification or compensation.

Grievances dismissed.