|
Labour (Fed) - Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board Act (FPSLREBA). Walcott v. Public Service Alliance of Canada
In Walcott v. Public Service Alliance of Canada (Fed CA, 2024) the Federal Court of Appeal cited the 'duty of fair representation' FPSLREBA provision [s.187]:[1] The applicant, Victor Walcott, seeks judicial review of a decision of the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board (Board): 2023 FPSLREB 54. The Board summarily dismissed the applicant’s complaint that his former union, the Public Service Alliance of Canada, had failed in its duty of fair representation, under section 187 of the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act, S.C. 2003, c. 22, s. 2, in relation to his 1997 termination grievance. ... . Ghafari v. Canada (Attorney General)
In Ghafari v. Canada (Attorney General) (Fed CA, 2023) the Federal Court of Appeal considered a JR against a decision of the Federal Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board (FPSLREB) that dismissed a "complaint alleging abuse of authority in an internal appointment process". These quotes address some of these statute-specific complaint procedures:[7] The Public Service Employment Act, S.C. 2003, c. 22, ss. 12, 13 (Act) requires appointments to be made based on merit and subsection 30(2) describes the circumstances in which an appointment is made on the basis of merit. An unsuccessful candidate for an internal appointment may make a complaint to the Board that they were not appointed or proposed for appointment by reason of an abuse of authority in the exercise of authority under subsection 30(2): ss. 77(1)-(2). The burden of establishing abuse of authority rests with the complainant: Gulia v. Canada (Attorney General), 2021 FCA 106 at para. 7 (Gulia).
[8] Mr. Ghafari made a complaint to the Board under section 77 of the Act, alleging an abuse of authority resulting in an incorrect assessment of his competencies for the senior methodologist position. ....
[9] ... While acknowledging Mr. Ghafari’s belief that he was not fairly assessed in the appointment process, the Board explained that its role was not to reassess him. Rather, the question before the Board was whether an abuse of authority had occurred. The Board observed that Mr. Ghafari had the burden of establishing bias or other abuse of authority and concluded he had not demonstrated either.
....
[28] The focus of a complaint under section 77 of the Act is abuse of authority in the exercise of authority under subsection 30(2) of the Act—that is, the authority to make an appointment on the basis of merit. An appointment is based on merit where the person meets the essential qualifications for the work performed: Act, s. 30(2)(a). But those qualifications may be established by the employer and, to determine whether a person meets the qualifications for the position, any assessment method considered appropriate may be used: Act, ss. 31, 36. The Board explained that it could not examine the choice of assessment method or the qualifications for the position: reasons at paras. 101, 110. . Canada (Attorney General) v. Rushwan
In Canada (Attorney General) v. Rushwan (Fed CA, 2023) the Federal Court of Appeal considers the high deference accorded to a labour board on JR, here the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board:[2] The interpretation of collective agreements is “the heartland of [the Board’s] expertise”, and its decisions on such matters are owed deference on an application for judicial review (Canada (Attorney General) v. Fehr, 2018 FCA 159, 296 A.C.W.S. (3d) 170 at para. 4). The Board’s decision accordingly attracts reasonableness review, in which this Court will only intervene where it encounters a fatal flaw that is central to the merits of the decision (Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65, [2019] 4 S.C.R. 653 at para. 100 [Vavilov]). . Public Service Alliance of Canada v. Canada (House of Commons)
In Public Service Alliance of Canada v. Canada (House of Commons) (Fed CA, 2023) the Federal Court of Appeal considered a JR from an arbitrator's award made by the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board (the Board), established under s.50 of the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act. The case is one of the very few that deals with the House of Commons as a party.
. Public Service Alliance of Canada v. Canada (Senate)
In Public Service Alliance of Canada v. Canada (Senate) (Fed CA, 2023) the Federal Court of Appeal considered a JR from an arbitrator's award made by the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board (the Board), established under s.50 of the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act. The case is one of the very few that deals with the Senate as a party.
. Canada (Attorney General) v. National Police Federation
In Canada (Attorney General) v. National Police Federation (Fed CA, 2023) the Federal Court of Appeal considered a Crown JR of a decision of the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board. This JR dealt with 'civilianization' by the Treasury Board of some work previously allocated to the RCMP to civilians:[7] The NPF is the bargaining agent representing all non-commissioned regular members of the RCMP and reservists. As this Court stated in Canada (Attorney General) v. National Police Federation, 2022 FCA 80 (NPF 2022), up until the changes made to the Act in 2017, regular members and reservists of the RCMP were not permitted to unionize or engage in collective bargaining. That had been the case since collective bargaining was first introduced in the federal public service in the late 1960s. This limitation was lifted after having been found to impermissibly encroach on the freedom of association guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part 1 of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c. 11, in Mounted Police Association of Ontario v. Canada (Attorney General), 2015 SCC 1, [2015] 1 S.C.R. 3 (NPF 2022 at para. 15).
|
