Public Service Labour Relations Board
www.pslrb-crtfp.gc.ca
Common menu bar links
Institutional links
Reports
Legislation and Forms
FAQs
Resources
Completed Access to Information Requests
Proactive Disclosure
Code of Conduct
Archived Content
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.
Reynolds v. Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada
Full Text
161-2-1255 (2004 PSSRB 51)
Reynolds v. Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada
Before: I. Mackenzie
Appearances: Reynolds, for the Complainant; M. Ranger, for the Respondent
Decision rendered: June 3, 2004
Subject terms:
Unfair labour practice - Complaint based on paragraph 23(1)(a) of the Public Service Staff Relations Act (PSSRA) alleging a violation of subsection 10(2) - Duty of fair representation - the complainant had filed three grievances with the support of the respondent - two of his grievances had been allowed by the employer - a third grievance was still pending - the complainant alleged that the respondent violated the collective agreement by seeking to prevent him from filing his second grievance, colluded with the employer by granting an extension of time to respond to the second grievance and by discussing the handling of the grievances with the employer, was grossly negligent in the processing of his grievances by not pressuring the employer to address issues other than timeliness, supported the employer where it breached subsection 97(4) of the PSSRA and failed to respond to four of his e-mails - the complainant argued that his first two grievances had been allowed as a result of the intervention of his Member of Parliament, not because of the representation that he had received from the respondent - the respondent responded that the grievances were handled with care and due diligence - the respondent submitted that there was no evidence that the intervention of the complainant's Member of Parliament had been necessary for the resolution of the first two grievances - the Board noted that the respondent did not refuse to represent the complainant and continued to represent him with regard to his third grievance - the Board found that the complainant's allegations were unfounded and that subsection 97(4) of the PSSRA had no application in the circumstances - the evidence showed that the respondent acted fairly in representing the complainant and did not act in a manner that was arbitrary, discriminatory or in bad faith.
Complaint dismissed.
Case cited: Canadian Merchant Service Guild v. Gagnon, [1984] 1 S.C.R. 509.
