Web pages that are archived on the Web are not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards. As per the Communications Policy of the Government of Canada, you can request alternate formats. Information identified as archived on the Web is for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. It has not been altered or updated after the date of archiving.
161-2-1190 (2001 PSSRB 86)
Walcott v. Turmel
Before: Y. Tarte
Appearances: Walcott, for the Complainant; A. Clark-McMunagle, for the Respondent
Decision rendered: August 27, 2001
Unfair labour practice – Complaint based on paragraph 23(1)(a) of the Public Service Staff Relations Act alleging a violation of subsection 10(2) thereof – Duty of fair representation – Undue delay – at the complainant's request, his bargaining agent retained, for the purposes of representing the complainant at an adjudication hearing, the services of the private practitioner who had represented him at his criminal trial – a dispute arose between the private practitioner and the bargaining agent regarding the former's fees – the bargaining agent accepted that the complainant be represented by a junior lawyer, who would act under the supervision of the private practitioner – the complainant objected to that course of action – an adjudicator eventually dismissed the complainant's grievance – the complainant complained to the bargaining agent that he had not received adequate representation – the complainant requested that his bargaining agent seek judicial review of the adjudication decision – the bargaining agent refused to seek judicial review, on the basis that there was no reasonable chance of success in an arguable case – more than three years later, the complainant filed a complaint alleging a violation of his bargaining agent's duty to fairly represent him at the adjudication hearing and on judicial review – the respondent objected to the filing of the complaint on the ground of the unexplained lengthy delay – the Board found that complaints should be filed within a reasonable time frame following the events on which they are based – the Board further found that the complainant had not discharged his onus of establishing a reasonable explanation for his long delay.
|Cases cited:||Harrison v. Public Service Alliance of Canada (161-2-725); Horstead v. Public Service Alliance of Canada (161-2-739); Giroux v. Séguin (161-2-825 and 826); Machnee v. Klaponski, 2001 PSSRB 28 (161-2-1152), Walcott (166-2-25590).|