Remtulla v. Treasury Board (Public Health Agency of Canada)

2013 PSLRB 132

  • Before: Steven B. Katkin
  • Decision Rendered: 2013-10-29
  • Original Language: English

Subject terms:

Rejection on probation – Grievances referred to adjudication alleging discipline and discrimination – Preliminary objection to jurisdiction – Grievance based solely on violation of the Canadian Human Rights Act – Grievor had not alleged discipline during grievance process – Burchill principle – Grievor did not have support of bargaining agent

The grievor contested her rejection on probation, alleging discrimination, in violation of the Canadian Human Rights Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. H-6 (CHRA) – her grievances were referred to adjudication under paragraph 209(1)(b) of the Public Service Labour Relations Act (PSLRA), which deals with disciplinary action – the employer raised a preliminary objection to the jurisdiction of a Board adjudicator to hear the matter on the ground that the rejection on probation was administrative and not disciplinary in nature – the employer also argued that the grievor had not argued discipline during the grievance process and did not have the support of her bargaining agent, as required by subsection 209(2) of the PSLRA to allege a violation of the collective agreement – the parties agreed to postpone the hearing pending a decision of a Board adjudicator in a related case, Chamberlain v. Treasury Board (Department of Human Resources and Skills Development), 2013 PSLRB 115 (Chamberlain 2013) – that decision held that an adjudicator has no jurisdiction to hear a grievance based solely on allegations of a violation of the CHRA – the parties were asked to make representations on the impact of that decision on this case – both parties submitted that the adjudicator did not have jurisdiction – the adjudicator held that, as found in Chamberlain 2013, subsection 209(1) of the PSLRA was a threshold determination before the exercise of powers pursuant to subsection 226(1) of the PSLRA – the grievor could not allege discipline as she had not raised it during the grievance process and could not raise it at the hearing (Burchill) – she could not raise a violation of the collective agreement as she did not have the approval of her bargaining agent – the adjudicator was without jurisdiction to hear her grievances as they had not been referred to adjudication in accordance with the requirements of section 209 of the PSLRA.

Grievance file closed.