Walcott v. Turmel

Full Text

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.

Complaint dismissed.