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.
148-2-252 & 253, 161-2-813 to 816, 819, 820, 822 to 824
Feldsted, Buchart, Spewak, Sanderson and Garwood-Filberts, Public Service Alliance of Canada
Before: B. Turner
Appearances: D. Bjornson, for the Complainants; E. Bramwell, for the Respondents
Decision rendered: November 3, 1997
Unfair labour practice – Complaint under paragraph 23(1)(a) of the Public Service Staff Relations Act alleging a violation of subsection 10(2) of the Act – Duty of fair representation – Application under section 21 of the Act alleging a violation of section 6 of the Act – Internal union matters – Timeliness – Jurisdiction – parties agreed that this determination would apply to all the complaints and applications filed by the complainants – complainants alleged that the respondent union official had utilized her position as a union officer to obtain funds from the bargaining agent to finance a civil action against them and that this constituted a breach of the duty of fair representation – complainant Feldsted also alleged that the respondents had violated section 6 of the Public Service Staff Relations Act when his membership in the bargaining agent was suspended for a five-year period – respondents submitted that the complaints were untimely in that the civil action began in February 1995 and the complaints were not filed until October 1996 – furthermore, the complainants were aware in September 1995 that union official would be receiving funds from the bargaining agent to finance the civil action – Board found that the complaints were not untimely – there was no statutory time limit to be met – in any case, the time between the complainants' becoming aware of the facts and their filing of the complaints was not excessive in light of all the circumstances – however, Board concluded that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaints and applications because they related to internal union matters.
Complaints and applications dismissed.
Cases cited: St. James et al. (100-1); Forsen (148-2-209).